"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (6)

Chapter 4

This chapter begins with Wright again referring to the “going to heaven” and “everything in heaven and on earth”. I am not quite sure why he does this. As mentioned earlier, I completely agree that salvation is not just about “going to heaven”, however, Wright seems to use this as grounds for diminishing the penal substitution aspect of the cross. Sin, man’s separation from God, is very reason why we do not have heaven on earth.

He then again insists on pitting sin and idolatry against each other. Let me state my position quite clearly. The heart of the problem, of all problems, is the sin in the heart of man, the rebellion against God. That means the problem lies with me (and, of course, also with you). Human nature will do all it can to avoid this conclusions, looking for any alternative solution. We will blame social conditions, upbringing, culture, our being mistreated, bad luck, or in Wright’s case, idolatry. Now all these things do matter, and do have serious effects, but the heart of problem lies in you and in me.

I really don’t understand what Wright is doing, or why he is doing it. He seems intent on setting up a straw man, of false dichotomies. So some do teach and preach a substandard gospel, some do get it wrong, missing out on the greatness of God’s plan, but Wright seems to be using this as a cloak for attacking penal substitution, when, properly understood, the reformed or evangelical view of the cross is not in any way opposed to the theme that God’s salvation is many times greater than “going to heaven”.

I think I realise why I am currently reacting against this book so much (and a book by someone I normally enjoy reading or listening to). He seems to be, at least implicitly, arguing against penal substitution (later parts of the book may show this to not be the case), and using this as part of the grounds for his more than “going to heaven” thesis. So he is arguing against, and misrepresenting, something I believe in, to argue for something I also believe in. The penal substitution view of the cross is no way antagonistic to the new heaven and earth thesis, indeed it is foundational for it. At loc 1130 he says (talking about the perversion of human rule) that “we ought not to let the perversion rob us of the good news...”. But that is precisely what Wright seems to be doing with the traditional evangelical view of the cross!

Wright continues to set idolatry and sin against each other, to some degree, but then (round about loc 1224) he goes on to say that sin is more than breaking of moral codes. I am appalled at the level of argument in this book. Up until this point he has been using “sin” in a very simplistic manner (doing bad things) and using this as a basis for some of his arguments. Now he rightly admits that sin means much more than that. So all the prior arguments based on a simplistic definition of sin were completely useless.