Journal _ Book Review_ the Mission of God _ 9Marks

7/31/2019 Journal _ Book Review_ the Mission of God _ 9Marks

1/8

IVP Academic, 2006.

582 pages. $40.00

espaol

By Christopher J. H. Wright

Reviewed byMike GilbartSmith

Reviewing a book about missions by Chris Wright makes me feel a little like a grown-up Pinocchio writing a

critique of Geppettos toy-making skills. Chris was very much involved in introducing me to the mission of

God and to the God of mission when he served as a curate in my parents church when I was between the

ages of 3 and 9.

I still have pleasant memories of Chris leading a Holiday Bible Club in Cage Green Hall, Tonbridge and

sharing the gospel in a clear and faithful way. And Chris and his family were the first ones to embody the

reality of overseas missions for me. I remember sitting by the lake at Ashburnham Place talking with Chriss

nine year old son about his familys upcoming move to India. I remember saving some of my pocket money

as a ten year old to put into a Bible Church Missionary Society box that sat in my fathers study, excited at

the possibility that my pennies might be used by the Lord over 4000 miles away where Chris was training

pastors.

About fifteen years later I heard Chris give a series of talks at New Word Alive on Deuteronomy, and was struck by the missional

reading of an Old Testament book that I had previously thought of as being a bunch of rules.

All that is to say, I owe a deep personal debt to Chris Wright.

The Mission of Godis the culmination of decades of thought and teaching that Chris has done on the relationship between the Bible

and missionsrather, mission. Hes been thinking about the material in this book longer than Ive been thinking about anything. Its

also a mammoth book, weighing in at 535 pages plus indexes. And so, in this brief space I will not be able to do much more than

briefly outline some of the content and engage with some of the more controversial questions that Wright raises.

SUMMARY

In the introduction Wright describes how he used to look for the biblical basis for missions but grew to prefer to explore the

missional basis of the Bible (22). Mission is not just one of a hundred different biblical themes that we might explore; the Bible is

fundamentally about mission, and is even the product of that mission. We are not just people who do missions for God, but God

himself is a missionary God, and we have the immense privilege in being incorporated into and involved in the mission of God.

The book then explores Gods mission and our place in it in four parts.

Part I: The Bible and Mission

Part one, The Bible and Mission, takes up the question of a missional hermeneutic. Central to Wrights approach to missions is to

use the term mission of God not merely to refer to what has commonly been called overseas missions. Rather, everythingthat

belongs to the overarching purpose of God constitutes his mission, his long-term purpose or goallike a company might draw up a

mission statement (23). This broad approach to Gods mission then opens up a similarly broad approach to our place within it.

Wright critiques the fact that so much missiology has been built upon one text, Matthew 28:18-20. If the whole Bible is fundamentally

missional, this kind of approach hardly makes sense. Wright argues that we must have a missional hermeneutic of the whole Bible

7Like

al : Book Review: The Mission of God | 9Marks http://www.9marks.org/books/book-review-mi

4/27/2012 1


2/8

that is informed not only by the great imperatives of the Great Commission and Great Commandment, but also the great indicatives

which all reveal to us the identity and saving purpose of the Great God for his whole creation (60).

The Bible is a book which has a mission, and that mission is Gods mission: to confront us with the reality of this God, the reality of

this storyand the reality of this people (54, his emphasis).

Part II: The God of Mission

Part two, The God of Mission, stares more closely at the identity of God, focusing on how the uniqueness of God implies the

universality of mission.

Monotheism is not, as some reconstructions of the religion of Israel would suggest, a growing development in Hebrew theology.

Rather, there was a radically monotheistic core to Israels faith from a very early period, however much it was obscured and

compromised in popular religious practice (73). This unique God reveals himself through a unique people in the Old Testament, but

his intentions in this were always universal.

The universal intentions of Gods election of Israel are fulfilled when God himself enters history in the person of Jesus Christ, and

acts as creator, ruler, judge and saviour. In Christ Jesus universal mission is opened up to be spread through all nations

Part III: The People of Mission

Part three, The People of Mission, explores what it means to be Gods chosen, redeemed, covenant, holy people. A biblical

theology of mission cannot begin at Pentecost; instead Wright begins with the Abrahamic covenant as arguably...the single most

important biblical tradition within a biblical theology of mission and a missional hermeneutic of the Bible (189). In Gods promises to

Abraham in Genesis 12, we discover that the unique Gods intention through his particular people is to reach all. Through the

blessing of one man and his one seed, all nations would be blessed through the New Covenant. This covenant is fundamentally

missional. Mission is an unavoidable imperative founded on the covenantal lordshipof Christ our King. Its task is to produce

self-replicating communities of covenantal obedienceto Christ among the nations. And it is sustained by the covenantal promiseof

the perduring presence of Christ among his followers (355).

Part IV: The Arena of Mission

Part four, The Arena of Mission, explores Gods intentions for all nations and cultures and the whole of creation. Namely, Gods

election of a particular people opens up into Gods grand, cosmic plans for his whole creation through the coming of the Messiah.

It is in this final section that it becomes most evident that Wright is constructing a very broad model of mission.

Since Gods mission (his overarching plan) encompasses the whole earthhuman, animal and environmentso should the

Christians mission. And because Gods mission as applied to humanity involves the restoration of human beings spiritually, rationally,

physically, and socially, so should ours.

So, as Wright offers a vision of holistic mission he is truly offering a vision of cosmic proportions, as we are caught up into the

mission of God himself.

POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION

There is somuch that could be said in admiration for this book, not least regarding its sheer scale and readability.

I love the overall approach of the book. Wright is right that we mustnt see missions as some kind of small theme in the Bible, but

rather as central to Gods purpose.

And there is somuch Bible in the book. The nine page, four column Scripture index makes this abundantly clear. The deliberate

emphasis on the Old Testament is a helpful corrective to missiologies that neglect three quarters of Bible and also to readings of the

Old Testament that neglect mission.


4/27/2012 1


3/8

It is also wonderful to have a book that is both broad in its scope and also emphasizes the non-negotiability of such central gospel

truths as penal substitution (312 ff.), the centrality of the cross, and the necessity of evangelism.

There is also a huge amount of missiological wisdom in the book. Typical of this wisdom is how Wright encourages evangelism that

rightly recognizes the dignity of every divine image-bearer we might seek to evangelize. Anything that denies other human beings

their dignity or fails to show respect, interest and informed understanding for all they hold precious is actually a failure to love (424).

Yet Wright doesnt swing too far in this direction; he continues, Not that love means accepting everything your neighbor believes or

does. Paul did not accept the religiosity of the Athenians, but he did seek to relate to them with polite respect, even while challenging

their assumptions.

While there is much to admire, there are also some serious causes for concern.

How can that be the case when the book is steeped in Scripture and the unfolding purposes of God? We shall first examine Wrights

biblical-theological method, and then raise some concerns about the conclusions he reaches.

QUESTIONS ABOUT WRIGHTS BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL METHOD

1. Where is continuity, and where discontinuity?

A missiology that focuses upon the Old Testament is certainly a valid approach, but it requires a very careful exploration of the lines

of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.

Wright employs polemical language to dismiss those who see the physical model of the Exodus in the Old Testament fulfilled

spiritually in the New. Within two pages they are accused of press[ing] a spiritualized application of the exodus and airbrush[ing]

the socioeconomicand political dimensions of the original historical event (ital. his). They misuse the typological method with a

twist of Platonic dualism. They undermine the organic continuity between Old and New Testament and make the Old Testament

like a booster rocket that, once the space capsule is launched, drops off and falls away into redundant oblivion. Instead, they ought

to see that the biblical narrative is like a tree. We now enjoy the spreading branches and abundant fruit of the New Testament

fulfillment. But the Old Testament is like the inner rings of the trunk...still supporting the structure on which the branches and fruit

have grown (278-279).

Such language is powerful, but by choosing different metaphors, one could launch an equally scathing critique of positions that seetoo muchcontinuity.

One could say that Wright fails to see the dynamicway in which the New Testament reality fulfills the Old Testament history. Instead

he causes the new wine of the gospel to stagnatein its old wineskins,stranglingits bouquet. Instead of a caterpillar finding its

fulfillment in the butterfly free to take to the air, Wright insists that the butterfly be grounded as it is forced to drag around the worn out

body of the caterpillar in its unmetamorphosizedstate.

The fact is that neither set of metaphors proves anything. What is needed is a careful examination of how the Old Testament

paradigms are picked up and employed in the New Testament. Yet Wright fails to provide this.

I would argue that the New Testament suggests greater discontinuity than Wright allows. The exodus isclearly picked up in the New

Testament as a paradigm of our salvation from slavery to sin. Yet it is nowhere picked up as a mandate for Christian political and

socioeconomic activism. On the contrary, Jesus insists that his disciples refused political resistance because his kingdom is not of

this world.

2. What aspects of the Old Testament narrative are given more weight?

There is also an imbalance concerning whichOld Testament events or institutions are seen as the model for New Testament

mission.

So, Wright sees the exodus and the exile as models of the mission of God. But if we picked other key themes or events, its not clear


4/27/2012 1


4/8

that we arrive at precisely the same conclusion.

If we take, for example, the function of the law, the Levitical code, and the lessons of the Old Testament prophets, we would see a

picture in which our personal guilt before God is a far more central problem than our bondage to the enemies of God, though this is

certainly related to that central problem.

The basic problem here is that Wright doesnt seem to allow Jesus and the apostles interpretation of the Old Testament to guide his

own interpretations. For instance, he insists on giving equal primacy to the political, economic, and social aspects of the exodus,

even though the Jesus of the Gospel records does not. Why does Jesussay that he came, and how does he fulfill the salvationevents of the Old Testament? We should ask him:

He came to preach: "Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out" (Mark 1:38).

He came to call sinners: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the

righteous, but sinners" (2:17).

And he came to save his people from sin in a new exodus: "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and

to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

Strangely, Wright describes this very emphasis on salvation from sin as a spiritualizing of the Old Testament (276). In so doing,

does he unwittingly end up choosing his own interpretation over Jesus?

3. An overly horizontal reading of sin

A biblical theology of the mission of God needs to examine Genesis 3 in closer detail than Wright provides. Genesis 1 to 3 sets up

the context into which sin comes, and from which the Lord seeks to redeem a people.

The two most substantial treatments of the fall in the book come in the exploration of idolatry in chapter 5 and in the image of God in

Chapter 13. In Chapter 5, Genesis 3 is explored for about a page (164-165) in which Wright rightly describes sin as idolatry that blurs

the Creator/creature distinction and thus attempts to displace God from his throne. Chapter 13 explores the spiritual, mental, physical

and social effects of sin (429-430).

What is missing from both accounts, and from the whole book, is a careful exploration of how Godsees sin. Sin certainly has manydestructive effects within the world, but what we see so clearly in Genesis 3 is not merely the horizontal results of sin: we see Gods

response to it. It is not merely that we are alienated, fearful, suspicious and hostile towards God, but that he acts in holy anger

towards us.

Once this is in place, we will continue to see this world as broken in all its relational complexity. But we will rightly see of all of that in

relation to God, and we will see that our primary need is to be restored to him.

Further, a focus on the horizontal rather than the vertical effects of sin seems to pervade much of the rest of Wrights reading of the

Old Testament.

So, to return to the theme of the Exodus: even as Wright uses the Exodus as a central model for the mission of God, I fear that he

has overlooked the central event in the Exodus, namely, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb and the sharing of the Passover meal.

For Wright, Passover is seen purely as a reminder that Gods redemption is social: God judges the genocidal Egyptians by

destroying their own firstborn (267). But the Passover lamb is strikingly absent from this description. Once we see the centrality of

the lamb, we recognize that the Passover is a reminder first and foremost that those who are redeemed would fall under the same

judgment as the enemies of God were it not for a substitutionary sacrifice. Yet Wright sees the Exodus as decidedly not deliverance

from their own sin (277). This seems to miss the centrality of the Passover lamb within the Exodus event, and also in the annual

Passover festival. The explanation of the Exodus and the Passover celebration which the Israelites were to hand down clearly

focuses on the lamb and what it represents: And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' then tell

them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homeswhen


4/27/2012 1


5/8

he struck down the Egyptians' " (Ex. 12:26-27; ital. mine).

The Exodus is a great model of New Testament redemption precisely because in it we see how Gods people, though deserving of

the same judgment as Gods enemies, are redeemed through the sacrifice of a perfect substitute. This is why the New Testament

presents Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Yet Wright seems to miss, or at best ignore, all this.

4. The insistence on flattening primary and secondary issues

In seeking a middle ground, Wright ironically falls into the fallacy of the excluded middle. Wright wants to find a middle position

between a liberal mission that is all social action and an extreme evangelical mission that is all evangelism and no social action, or at

least a concept of mission in which evangelism is seen as primary and social or political action is secondary.

Wright respects those who hold to the priority of evangelism but he resists the terms primacy and priority because it implies that

all else is secondary, and we know from our sports that second is nowhere... the language of priority and primacy quickly tends to

imply singularity and exclusion (317).

This is another point at which Wrights characteristic carefulness falters, and he seems to let old-fashion pragmatism drive his

thinking instead of Scripture. Surely as Christians we have to be able to say that some things are more important than others without

denying the importance of those things that are secondary. Does Pauls insistence in 1 Corinthians 15 that some things are of first

importance relegate the first 14 chapters of the letter to being of no importance at all?

FROM METHOD TO CONCLUSIONS

Our methodology radically affects our conclusions. I would suggest that these four flaws in Wrights approach result in a

mis-definition of Gods mission. Insofar as he turns discontinuities into continuities and flattens canonical trajectories, Wright ends up

decentering the distinctively Christian aspects of Gods mission and gives just as much emphasis to the things that even

non-Christians would want from God. This further results in a concept of the churchs mission which focuses too much on what is

peripheral and not enough on what is central.

In response, I would argue that the mission of God is not about shaping the church around Israel, but seeing the fulfillment of Israel in

a kingdom that is not of this world. The mission of God fulfills all of the Old Testament, not just some of it. It is about peace with God

first, and one another only as we are reconciled to him. It has a trillion implications that range from the very central to the veryperipheral with all their consequential variations in importance.

In order to flesh out this big-picture critique, allow me to highlight a few of Wrights specific conclusions that cause some concern.

1. What Is the Christian Mission?

First, by raising other aspects of mission to the level of primacy, Wrights conception of Christian mission demotes evangelism to first

equal.

In his portrayal of holistic mission throughout the book, Wright has an imaginary talking partner: an advocate of a more traditional and

narrow missiology in which the gospel is defined exclusively as the salvation of individuals from hell and to heaven, and mission is

defined exclusively as sharing that gospel of individual salvation. This view of missions is the one he grew up with.

I write as a son of Northern Ireland. That has to be one of the most evangelized small patches on the globe. As I grew up, almost

anybody I met could have told me the gospel and how to get saved...Yet in my Protestant evangelical culture, the zeal for

evangelism was equal only to a suspicion of any form of Christian social concern or conscience about issues of justice. That was the

domain of liberals and ecumenicals, and a betrayal of the pure gospel... So the proportionately high number of the evangelizers and

the evangelized...certainly did not produce a society transformed by the values of the kingdom. On the contrary it was...possible to

hear all the language of evangelistic zeal and all the hatred, bigotry and violence coming from the same mouths. (321)

There is not space in this review, or the expertise in this reviewer, to unravel the intertwined social, political, religious, cultural and

ethnic complexities of the tensions in Northern Ireland. But surely it must be reductionistic to lay responsibility for these tensions at


4/27/2012 1


6/8

the feet of Christians for regarding evangelism as more important than social concern, or even to say that a more holistic gospel

would have made any difference.

No doubt, there are many ways in which one would hope to see the salt and light of Christians in Northern Ireland would reform the

societys values, but there are also clear examples in which positive change has occurredchanges that have not occurred in

mainland Britain. For example, the British state has sanctioned nearly 7.3 million murders since the 1967 Abortion Act; but not in

Northern Ireland where the Act does not apply. Yet strangely, in a book championing social justice as a coequal partner to evangelism

in Christian mission, Wright doesnt mention abortion once. I fear that when we start making things that non-Christians will love

co-centers of mission along with evangelism, even some forms of social justice will remain too unpopular with non-Christians to be

championed by Christians. Its fine to talk about AIDS and recycling, but abortion must be avoided.

Wright may have seen the primacy of evangelism over social action more clearly if he considered more of Jesus evangelistic

warnings. Jesus repeatedly talks about the dangers of hell. Just in Matthews gospel, one can find references in 5:22, 29, 30, 8:12,

10:28, 13:42, 50 18:9, 22:13, 23:33, 24:51, and 25:30. Both the words heaven and hell do appear next to each other in the Mission

of Gods index, and heaven has 42 entries and heavenly receives 17. But hell receives only one. And the one reference to hell

says nothing about the importance of evangelism, but, ironically, simply warns those who do not care for the poor (306). What about

all those who do not hearthe gospel? Nowhere in this book are they presented as being in danger of hell. On the contrary, physical

death is presented as the ultimate and the most terrible of enemies (439).

A 500 page book on mission that doesnt starein fact, doesnt even glanceat the reality of hell for the unevangelized has lost its

bearings. It has fallen into the danger of elevating other undeniable human plights to the level of importance and centrality that

should be accorded only to our need to be reconciled to God and saved from the eternal death of his wrath. We can see with our

eyesthe horrific images of children dying of famine, evil regimes destroying their own citizens, AIDS epidemics devastating whole

societies, wars ravaging whole nations, the environmental horrors that might be unleashed by unchecked global warming, and so on.

But we can only hear and imaginethe reality of billions of souls heading towards unending torment in hell, without experiencing the

loving presence of their perfect Creator, but knowing him only as the Judge whom they have made their enemy. And only the gospel

holds out to them the unending bliss worshipping and enjoying their beautiful Creator, Saviour, and Lord as they see the glorified

wounds of the Risen Lamb. If we truly stared at these eternal realities, we would view the gospel and its power to save individuals

from hell as rather more central to Christian mission than healing the sick or planting trees. Do understand, Im not just comparing the

physical with the spiritual, Im comparing the temporary with the eternal.

Wright fears that, unless evangelism is removed from the position of primacy within Christian mission, everything else will be

removed altogether. My fear is that unless evangelism is recognized as uniquely central to Christian mission, we may end up making

the lives of people in this world more comfortable while they continue down a road that leads to hell.

2. What Is the Gospel?[1]

Similarly, Wrights conception of the gospel is as inclusive as his definition of mission.

So, according to Wright, mission is not merely preaching the gospel, but also social, political and environmental action.

And, according to Wright, the gospel itself is not merely the good news of salvation for sinners from the consequences of their sin:Bluntly, we need a holistic gospel because the world is in a holistic mess. And by Gods incredible grace we have a gospel big

enough to redeem all that sin and evil has touched (315).

Of course, one must not deny the cosmic significance of the gospel. As Paul says, the creation itself will be liberated from its

bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God (Rom. 8:21). But once again, to suggest that the

gospel has implicationsfor the whole of creation does not mean we need to deny that the gospel has a center. Wright acknowledges

this, and is clear that the very core of biblical faith [is] the cross of Christ (312). He then goes on to expound the huge dimensions

of the redemptive work achieved in the cross to deal with the guilt of human sin...to defeat the powers of evil...to destroy death... to

remove the barrier of enmity and alienation between Jew and Gentile...and to heal and reconcile his whole creation (312-313).


4/27/2012 1


7/8

But Id love to ask a few questions that push things further: What is at the centerof Christs work on the cross? Are these five areas

of Gods redemptive mission all equally central to that mission?

As D.A. Carson has so clearly put it,

But I think it can be shown (though it would take a very long chapter to do it) that if one begins with the centrality of penal

substitution, which is, as we have seen, grounded on a deep understanding of how sin is an offense against God, it is very easy to

see how all the other so-called models of the atonement are related to it... It is very difficult to establish the coherence if one begins

anywhere else.[2]

It seems that when one sees the cross at the center of the gospel, and penal substitution at the center of the cross, it makes sense

why the gospel can also be a term in the New Testament that focuses on the central effect of the good news: the salvation of sinners

from hell and into a restored relationship with God through the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Consider, for example, the following passages:

1 Corinthians 15:2-3: By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have

believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the

Scriptures.

Romans 1:16: I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: firstfor the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Ephesians 1:13-14: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.

Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance

until the redemption of those who are God's possessionto the praise of his glory.

In sum, while Wright may be correct to draw attention to the cosmic dimensions of the gospel, he fails to give sufficient weight to what

is most central to the gospel itself: the penal, substitutionary death of Christ which accomplished the salvation of all those who turn

from their sin and trust in him.

3. What is the church?

Wright argues that Holistic mission cannot be the responsibility of any one individual. But it is certainly the responsibility of the whole

church (322). And that seems to be the purpose of the church according to Wright: to have enough people so that they will be able

to spread themselves across the whole breadth of the mission of God.

Further discussion of Wrights ecclesiology must be left to Bobby Jamiesons review of Wrights recent book, The Mission of Gods

People. Suffice it to say here, it seems strange to me that if the renewal of creation, political action, and social justice are all essential

aspects of the churchs mission that we find so little about them in the New Testament letters addressing New Testament churches.

Instead, we find a great deal about preaching the gospel, living holy lives and growing in discipleship. What we find is in fact a living

out of the Great Commission.

Further, Wright seems to contradict himself somewhat about whether the Great Commission is the center of Christian Mission. Earlyin the book we read,

A missional hermeneutic, then is not content simply to call for obedience to the Great Commission (though it will assuredly include

that as a matter of nonnegotiable importance)... A missional hermeneutic of the whole Bible will not become obsessed with only the

great mission imperatives, such as the Great Commission, or be tempted to impose on them one assumed priority or another (e.g.

evangelism or social justice or liberation or ecclesiastical order as the only real mission). Rather we will set those great imperatives

within the context of their foundational indicatives, namely, all that the Bible affirms about God, creation, human life in its paradox of

dignity and depravity, redemption in all its comprehensive glory, and the new creation in which God will dwell with his people. (60-61)

That seems to suggest that the Great Commission is a pretty small piece in a jigsaw that would be incomplete without it, but which


4/27/2012 1


8/8

has plenty of other pieces.

However, later we read, The Great Commision is thecommand of the new covenant (354, emphasis mine). Mission then, as

articulated in the Great Commission, is the reflex of the new covenant... Its task is to produce self-replicating communities of

covenantal obedience to Christ among the nations (355).

Whats going on here? Perhaps if we try to suggest that the Great Commission is one among many aims within the mission of the

church, rather than the center, one of two things will happen. Either it will fall off the edge, as other things will be much more popular

with the world and much easier to achieve. Or, as we keep reading our Bibles, it will not let us off the hook, but will keep returning usto the center.

I pray that this would be the case not only for the writings of Wright, but for the understanding of the church as we continue to reflect

upon the mission of God and our place within it.

Mike Gilbart-Smith is the pastor of Twynholm Baptist Church in Fulham, England.

[1] For a great article which considers the New Testament use of the word gospel and its implications for our definition of the

gospel, see http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/files/2010/10/for_the_fame_of_gods_name.excerpt.pdf

[2] See http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2007_forum_penal_substitution.pdf

November/December 2010

9Marks

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not

alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000

physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly

approved by 9Marks.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: 9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email:

[email protected]. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.

Tweet 8

0

Share on emailEmail

Share

Copyright 2012 9Marks

7Like


Documents

Journal _ Book Review_ the Mission of God _ 9Marks