You can listen to or download the interview in its entirety here.

On being a bishop. Download audio file (wrightbishop.mp3)

On the unfortunate split between church and academy. Download audio file (wrightpastorwriter.mp3)

On returning to fulltime academic work. Download audio file (wrightteacher.mp3)

On Bart Ehrman. Download audio file (wrightbartehrman.mp3)

On John Shelby Spong. Download audio file (wrightspong.mp3)

On Luke Timothy Johnson. Download audio file (wrightjohnson.mp3)

On Marcus Borg & John Dominic Crossan. Download audio file (wrightborgcrossan.mp3)

On Jurgen Moltmann. Download audio file (wrightmoltmann.mp3)

On E.P. Sanders. Download audio file (wrightsanders.mp3)

On Karl Barth. Download audio file (wrightbarth.mp3)

On Stanley Hauerwas. Download audio file (wrighthauerwas.mp3)

On his most recent book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters and why he chose to write about eschatology before ethics. Download audio file (wrightafteryoubelieve.mp3)

On the difference between Aristotelian virtue and Christian virtue. Download audio file (wrightchristianvirtue.mp3)

On the role of character and virtue in other religions. Download audio file (wrightreligiousvirtue.mp3)

On cultural virtue. Download audio file (wrightculturalvirtue.mp3)

On the renewing of our minds when they have become largely detached from the rest of who we are. Download audio file (wrightrenewing.mp3)

On Christianity Post-Postmodernity. Download audio file (wrightchristianitypostpostmodernity.mp3)

On the after-after life. Download audio file (wrightafterlife.mp3)

What NT Wright is reading, thinking, and planning for his “big book on Paul” as the next in his Christian Origins series. Download audio file (wrightreading.mp3)

What we can expect from NT Wright in his new role. Download audio file (wrightfuture.mp3)

Related posts:

1. The Missiological Future of Theological Education – Training Kingdom Citizens
2. Tending to Eden: An Interview with Author, Scott Sabin
3. NT Wright and the Emerging Church

I actually feel like offering a thought or two on a different kind of move – the one from an attractional way of being the church to a missional way.

More and more churches are attempting (or at least saying they are attempting) to make this transition.  For those of you interested in this phenomenon, I wanted to try and spark some discussion.

1) Attractional churches exist because they are predicated on a certain understanding of the gospel.  Therefore, there is no true movement from attractional to missional where there is not a renewed understanding, articulation, and demonstration of the gospel.  The distorted version of the gospel which undergirds an attractional model of church was largely inherited on account of a Christendom context within modernity.  As Western culture increasingly moves out of modernity, we are having an opportunity to rethink our understanding of the gospel and this is the starting place for those churches who are seeking to be missional.

2) Not unlike Paul, who thought the gospel was one thing and discovered it was another, churches looking to make this transition ought to do so in sackcloth and ashes. They need to be prepared to ask forgiveness from those they have injured, ostracized, and neglected.  Churches who fail to experience grief over the damage they have done and embark on the journey toward healing and restoration probably have no idea what they are talking about.  Such has been the lot of the people of God down through the ages.  May it not be true of us.

3) This transition needs to be a cautious and patient one. Much undoing and unlearning needs to take place if this transition is to be genuine and lasting. More than this, until we acknowledge that we have been heading in the wrong direction and make the decision to do some back tracking, then all perceived forward movement is actually just more deviation, just with new fancy language.

4) This “new” way is not really new at all. It is not a transition predicated on changing times, postmodernity, or the emerging culture. This “new” way forward is actually the way of Jesus. It is simply being rediscovered in the wake of the crumbling of modernity and Christendom.  If there is something intrinsically right and good about the missional church movement, then it will not be a passing fad only to be replaced with the next cultural shift.  Being missional is not about being relevant, it’s about being faithful.

5) What it means to be missional is not to be equated with serving others.  It is not a simple matter of shifting ones attention and focus from drawing people in to becoming more service-minded.  Instead, as I was alluding to above, it is a major shift in our understanding of what it means to be saved, what the good news really is, and what it means to be the people of God.   In short, the move from attractional to missional is not primarily a church matter (How do we do church?)  It is a theological matter (Who is God?)

Getting Personal

Yes, I have been personally burned and hurt by the modern, seeker-sensitive, attractional model of church.  Like many others, who I am quick to defend, but whose incessant whining I also tire of quickly, I sometimes have a tendency to lash out and I am quick to criticize.

However, what I am offering here runs quite a bit deeper than that. What I offer here is an authentic desire for those churches wishing to make this sort of transition to succeed.  To be honest, I am not sure how well I would do as a leader in a church trying to make this sort of transition – perhaps that will be what God has for me down the line.  Whatever the case, I pray for my brothers and sisters seeking to make this sort of transition.  I stand on their side as they seek to honor and remain faithful to the call God has on their lives, and I hope that if I am ever in the situation to help maneuver a change like this, I will hold tight and fast to these reminders.

Related posts:

1. Attractional/Missional: From Pragmatics to Formation
2. Missional vs. Attractional Equipping
3. Toward A Missional Vision of Theological Education: Contextual Training

Click here to see the 2nd part.

In usual fashion, I’m gonna try to bite off more than I can chew here and both make good on my previous promise to post more biblical/scriptural reflections on the issue I mentioned before, as well as offer some comments on what Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle) had to say in these promotional trailers for the upcoming 2006 Desiring God conference hosted by John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church. I think I can creatively combine the two.In his first interview Mark critiques the seeker sensitive movement for being too consumer driven and business like. His concern seems to be that churches like this are driven more by pragmatisim than theology. He suggests that missional churches begin with theology and then find ways to make it translatable within a given context and culture. Here’s where I differ.

It seems to me that seeker churches are in fact driven by their theology and have done an incredibly great job of making it translatable within their contexts and cultures (most of which are middle to upper class, white, suburbs). The problem is not that they are overly pragmatic, it is that they need to rethink their theology (something Mark seems to leave little room for by believing that issues of women and preaching/theological education are closed for theological discussion).

All the seeker churches that I have been a part of for any length of time seem to operate out of a theology which understands salvation as believing the right things, namely, that Jesus was God and died on the cross as a penalty for my sins (I am not disputing this by the way). But, if that’s the crux of the matter, then guess what, the best thing for us to do is attract people however we can, make them feel as comfortable and receptive as possible, and then ask them to believe the message we have to tell them. Seeker churches have written the book on doing this well. The danger is that if they are operating out of a deficient theology, we’re in big trouble. Here’s where I’ll make the link to what I call missional pastoring.

Missional churches, in my opinion anyway, operate out of a theology which understands salvation not merely as believing the right things, but participating in a certain way of living. This is not salvation by works, it is life as a saved/redeemed/transfigured/covenant people who seek to embody the present reign of God. It’s saying the truth we proclaim is worthless unless we can lead lives which exhibit it (no, not perfectly, but consistently and with repentance amidst failure).

If what it means to be a follower of Jesus isn’t just about believing the right things, but living a certain kind of life then we need seasoned and mature pastors, teachers, and leaders to model and equip us to do so. Pastors of hundreds, much less thousands or tens of thousands can’t do that. If character, lifestyle, and spiritual formation are seen as the key issues of authentic Christian witness (as opposed to getting people to assent to propositional truth claims), then we need pastors who can help us transform our minds and lives on account of God’s reality, not just convince us of the right things to believe, make us feel guilty about our sin, or manipulate our emotions through their preaching.

I am thinking about Moses and how he lead Israel, how his father-in-law helped him to see the necessity of appointing leaders over smaller numbers of people. I am thinking of the way God set up the family structure, placing responsibility on parents for raising their children well. I am thinking of Paul who advised early church communities to appoint and heed their leaders. I am thinking of Jesus who took 12 disciples “that they might be with him…”

There is one theology which leads us to believe that what is really important is helping people get into heaven. There is another theology which would have us believe that what is really important is getting heaven out into the world amongst people. For the former we need a seeker church, for the latter a missional one. In either case, I pray we never think that we are finished with our theological task and that we are constantly open to what the Holy Spirit may be saying and doing, whether amongst the people of God or the people of the world – for both are equally loved by their creator.

Related posts:

1. Toward a Missional Vision of Theological Education: The Fruit of the Problem
2. Toward A Missional Vision of Theological Education: Conviction Shaping
3. Being Truly Missional

Question:

For several years, close friends of yours have been active members of a “seeker sensitive” church, hosting outreach events in their home as well as playing a leadership role in the church. They recently expressed dissatisfaction to you, however, over some activities in which their church had sought to reach “the world” on its own turf. These included videos in a worship service and a women’s fashion show, both, according to your friends, in questionable taste. “Of course, we must reach out to the world,” one of them told you, “but I’m beginning to think we’ve gone a little overboard. What are we calling people to? What about holiness? I need to be fed, too!” How might you use the themes of our study this week to help your friends to determine what a proper balance in their church might look like?

My Response:

We must begin by defining what we mean by “reach.” Many seeker-sensitive churches seem to define reaching as drawing the biggest crowd possible to hear (and hopefully respond to) the message of the gospel. If people hear and affirm their belief in this message, usually stated in propositional forms, then we consider them “reached.”  If this is what it means to reach people then we ought to be quite alright with using whatever means necessary to draw a crowd.

But this does not seem to correspond well with the way in which Jesus (or Paul or the early church for that matter) “reached” people. We are told that Jesus emptied himself and became a servant on behalf of others. His mission and message were marked by healing, forgiveness, and the constituting of a particular kind of community, the kind which would joyfully live distinctively under the reign of God and would likewise see itself crucified for the sake of the world.

Within the Church, there is perhaps no balance to be aspired to in terms of feeding the congregation and reaching the lost. Rather, it seems to be the case that the Church is that peculiar community whose very food and sustenance is siding with God in his mission to the world. He said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” (Jn. 4:32)

Related posts:

1. Missional Pastoring
2. The Emerging Guild of Missionary Theologians
3. The Missiological Future of Theological Education – Training Kingdom Citizens

I never thought I would go to a Christian college, but in so doing, I found myself a part of a community of friends who shaped the way I think, see, and dream.

I never thought that when I graduated I would step into a youth ministry position at a megachurch, but these were three of the most formative years of my life.

I never thought I would relocate to California to attend Seminary, but the time I have had to spend with my family out here, living in a culturally and ethnically diverse community, and the friendships I have made are all some of the most important things in the world to me.

I didn’t plan for any of these things, they all sort of snuck up on me unexpectedly. In each instance, I ventured into stages of life that were both scary and held little intrinsic promise.

Many people told me that going to a small, Christian college was a horrible decision. Everything inside of me told me that accepting the position at RiverTree was a bad idea because of how far in over my head I would be. Coming to Fuller tore against every fiber of my being – it made so little sense.

What do all these things have in common then? They all share the common feature of being what I (and others) discerned to be the leading of God.

Sometimes I think about where I’d be, what I’d be doing, and who I’d be if I had decided to do what made sense and what was comfortable rather than taking risks and doing be best to follow what seemed to be God’s leading. I feel like I know 2 things for sure…

1) God would still be present, He would still love me, and He would steal work in and through me
2) My experience of Him, His grace, His provision, and the excitement of what it means to follow after Christ would be incredibly lessened.

I don’t think God’s promise to be with us is necessarily contingent on whether or not we take the risks and challenges he places before us, but like any good teacher, God can only give us what we are willing to receive. Once when I was completely stressing over a major decision I had to make, a good friend and mentor asked me, “JR, how many people do you know from Scripture that felt ready and equipped to do what God was asking of them.” None. There were none. Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Mary & Joseph, the disciples, Paul, even Jesus himself, they all balked at, questioned, or otherwise demonstrated the insecurity they felt toward the task to which they were called. Why should we expect any less?

Heaven forbid that I ever lack the courage to follow where God seems to be leading – that I trade the depths to which I might know and expereince God in all his fullness for the sake of doing that which makes sense, seems logical, and ensures safety and security.

Related posts:

1. (More) Things I Never Thought
2. For the New Year
3. Ten Things You Should Not Expect From Missional Churches

Check Judaism. Check Islam. Check pretty much anyone.

I mean, God may well be with us in our mansions
on the hill… I hope so. He may well be with us as in all manner of
controversial stuff… maybe, maybe not… But the one thing we can all
agree, all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable
and poor.

God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes
where the poor play house… God is in the silence of a mother who has
infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives… God is
in the cries heard under the rubble of war… God is in the debris of
wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them.
“If you remove the yolk from your midst, the pointing of the finger and
speaking wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy
the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and
your gloom with become like midday and the Lord will continually guide
you and satisfy your desire in scorched places”

It’s not a coincidence that in the Scriptures,
poverty is mentioned more than 2,100 times. It’s not an accident.
That’s a lot of air time, 2,100 mentions. [You know, the only time
Christ is judgmental is on the subject of the poor.] ‘As you have done
it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.’
(Matthew 25:40). As I say, good news to the poor.

You can watch his whole (20 min.) speech here. I couldn’t get it to work in Firefox, so open it in IE if you can.

I love that Bono said what he did. I love that he was even given a chance to say it. But I am supremely confident that not a few conservative Christians will take offense to his suggestion that the God of Christianity would have anything to do, much less anything in common with the gods of Islam, Judaism, or the gods of “pretty much everyone.” For most conservative Chritians the God of Christianity is concerned first and foremost with people trusting in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. Concern for the poor is supposed to be something you exhibit after Christ has made you a new creation as a point of discipleship. And even then, it’s a minor point in contrast to the more major points of discipleship such as joining a small group, attending mens and womend retreats, prayer meetings, and Bible studies.

None of this is all that surprising given the way Paul’s writing and theology have been understood – mainly through the eyes and writings of men such as Luther, Calvin, and Barth. But man is it hard to reconcile with the gospels and the life and teaching of Jesus.

Bono is right, you look at Jesus and you see, more than anything else, a concern for the poor, the oppressed, the outcast. He forgave sins and never said anything about it having to do with his death or resurrection (Mt. 9:2). As opposed to Paul whoseems to be constantly talking about sin and the need to believe in Jesus, Jesus seems to have spent his life and ministry emphasizing understanding God in a certain way and responding accordingly

My point. I am saying all this to make one point. I think one of the greatest needs in Christianity is that of understanding how Paul (and the rest of the NT outside the gospels) are to be understood in light of the gospels and the central figure of Jesus. I am happy to say that I think the New Perspective on Paul is making some progress in this direction and I am also convinced that narrative theology will be a majorly beneficial resource in this endeavor.

God love Bono for saying what he said. I don’t mean to pick on him at all. After all, there’s only so much he could have said given the time and place, I am merely using this as an example of something I have been noticing and pondering more and more.

I would love comments about this!

Related posts:

1. Jesus – A Theological Deconstructionist
2. The Challenge of Jesus
3. Consuming Jesus