Customer Reviews

Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church

5 star:		(47)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

N.T. Wright has written another brilliant work echoing he previously published masterpiece on the resurrection. Wright's expounds on a Christian hope firmly rooted in the Biblical narrative that longs for new creation.

In a world where the radio orthodoxy of Christianity espouses a gospel of fire insurance, Wright correctly and articulates a gospel and hope for so much more than disembodied bliss. "God's Kingdom in the preaching of Jesus refers not to postmortem destiny, not to our escape from this world into another one, but to God's sovereign rule coming on earth as it is in heaven".

Our hope according to Wright is not "going to heaven when you die" but rather in life after life after death. We hope not for an escape from this earth, but to the glorious day when God will make all things new.

Readers of this book may find the lack of eschatological certainty within the book frustrating. In a Christian sub-culture where end-times charts and elaborate explanations of the book of Revelation are the norm, Wright is careful to show that Christian eschatology is not about a certitude of specific events yet to come, but rather a hope for a renewed earth. Eschatology must be viewed as sign posts guiding our way through a fog rather than a detailed map.

Wright's comments in chapter 12 on the meaning of salvation are worth the price of the book, and his restatement of the doctrine of hell in chapter 11 is worth twice the price of the book. How we view the gospel, and the death and resurrection of Jesus greatly determines how our definition and the outworking of salvation.

In short, this is N.T. Wright at his best. A foremost expert on the resurrection of Jesus and the implications of Christ's defeat of death on eschatology and future hope, Wright has given us a clear, readable, and deeply Biblical picture of Christian hope.

I am hesitant to recommend Wright's work, especially to those not firmly grounded in the gospel, but this is a great book. I always find him insightful, but have some significant disagreements with him, especially concerning his views on Paul.

Wright states in the preface, "Most people, in my experience-including many Christan's-don't know what the ultimate Christian hope really is. Most people-again, sadly, including many Christians-don't expect Christians to have much to say about hope within the present world" (xi). Wright's aim in this book is to do his part to straighten this out.

Chapter 1 sets the scene by describing the broader world's confusion about hope, then describes three popular views about the afterlife in the world: annihilation, reincarnation, and ghosts and the possibility of spiritualistic contact with the dead (new age stuff).

Chapter 2 describes the reigning confusion about hope in the church, which has oscillated between seeing death as a vile enemy or a welcome friend. Wright blames Platonism's influence on the Christian faith for much of the confusion and reason why so many value the soul over the body. He is concerned that not many Christians understand biblical hope, and rarely think about it, much less live in light of it. The biblical vision of "heaven" is not souls flying off to a spiritual domain but resurrected bodies reigning with Christ on the new heavens and new earth. He then lays out the effects of the confusion in our hymns (the ultimate vision is not us going home up there but Christ coming here), our celebration of the Christian year (Easter should be celebrated more than Christmas), and funerals. The wider implications of our confusion about the future have to do with how we live here and now, and the way we look at earth and our actions here. If one thinks God is going to destroy this universe, why care about it now? Wright rightly argues that there will be both continuity and discontinuity between this earth and the transformed earth, so that what we do here matters enormously.

Chapter 3 was very helpful, laying out the Jewish and pagan historical setting and their beliefs about resurrection around the time of Jesus. This whet my appetite for his big book on resurrection. The early Christians modified the Jewish belief in at least 7 ways. Jews were looking for one big end-time resurrection event, not one man in the middle of history before all others. Here we have NT inaugurated eschatology. Christ's resurrection was the first fruits (the first of the harvest guaranteeing the rest) securing the resurrection of all who are incorporated into him by faith (although Wright might say baptism).

Chapter 4 covers the Easter accounts in the gospels. Here Wright makes the case for the resurrection historically and apologetically. Ultimately, there is a clash of worldviews but all the evidence points to the fact that Christ has been raised. How will you respond? Chapter 5 covers God's future world and describes two worldly alternatives to hope: evolutionary optimism (the myth of progress that cannot deal with the rampant evil in the world) and souls in transit (with a negative view of all things material - Platonic & Gnostic - the "just passin' through' mindset). The next chapter lays out the Christian view of the future world, which is opposed to both. The fundamental structures of hope are the goodness of creation, the nature of evil, and the plan of redemption. God has raised Christ and has promised to not only raise us, but redeem the whole cosmos (Rom 8.18-25).

In chapter 7, Wright lays out the biblical teaching on the ascension, cosmology, and concludes with a brief comment on the second coming and the unfortunate effects of the "highly distorted" interpretations of dispensationalism (119). In chapter 8, he tackles the second coming, focusing on the son of man sayings, parousia (coming), and attention to 1 Thess 4.16-17, 1 Cor 15, & Phil. 3. Wright sees the son of man coming sayings as being fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. The next chapter focuses on the coming of Jesus as judge. God in Christ will set the world to rights. Chapter 10 is on the future resurrection in Scripture. In order to distinguish his view from the popular view, he calls the resurrection "life after life after death" (148). Here he rightly focuses on 1 Cor 15. Our future bodies will be physical, and entirely animated by the Spirit. He closes the chapter by answering the practical questions of who, where, what, why, when, and how of the resurrection.

Chapter 11 answers the question of "Where are the dead now?" Wright knocks down the belief in purgatory, and also explains paradise, or the intermediate state. If we die before the Lord returns, we go to paradise, to be with the Lord until he returns to the earth to raise our bodies and renew the cosmos. Wright then argues against universalism, against annihilationism, and for a novel view of hell, where basically the person who was once human, become "ex-human." Chapter 12 deals with the practical implications of hope. He writes of the significance of our work here and now. He also says we should rethink what we mean by salvation by making it broader: "Salvation, then, is not 'going to heaven' but 'being raised to life in God's new heaven and new earth" (198). He closes the chapter with a theological and practical exposition of the kingdom of God.

Chapter 13 is about building for the kingdom. As mentioned, there will be continuity but we aren't told what this will look like. He seeks a middle way between the social gospel advocates and fundamentalists. He mentions the work of justice, beauty, and evangelism. The following chapter goes to the biblical roots for reshaping the church's mission looking primarily at the Gospels, Acts, and Paul. His exposition of Luke 24 is great. Wright concludes with a chapter on living for the future with the redeeming of space, time, and matter. "The mission of the church is nothing more or less than the outworking, in the power of the Spirit, of Jesus's bodily resurrection and thus the anticipation of the time when God will fill the earth with his glory, transform the old heavens and earth into the new, and raise his children from the dead to populate and rule over the redeemed world he has made" (265). He ends the book with 6 aspects of resurrection and spirituality (new birth and baptism, Eucharist, prayer, Scripture, holiness, love) and an appendix consisting of 2 Easter sermons.


80% of this book is excellent. Wright has immersed himself in the story of Israel and the sources of the 1st century. His writing style is excellent. The truth and glory of the resurrection needs to be emphasized more and more in our churches. Our people need to be a people characterized by hope, which motivates mission. God's people also ought to be holistic. Wright is right that the Christian mission consists of more than 'saving souls.' It is at this point however that I take issue with the book. The section on hell is far from the biblical text. It seems strange to me that with his knowledge of the text he can say that "Jesus simply didn't say very much about the future life" (177). Christ spoke more of hell than anyone else in the NT. Wright lacks categories for sin, and wrath. Dehumanization does not do justice to Scripture's teaching on final judgment. I agree that some verses speak metaphorically, but one cannot escape the conclusion that hell will consist of physical and psychological torment, an element that Wright's doctrine of hell certainly misses. He caricatures the traditional view, and waxes eloquent on his own view. This may also feed his de-emphasis on evangelism and 'saving souls.' But if all sinners will face is sub-humanity, the urgency of sharing the gospel decreases significantly. He seems more excited about political engagement than pointing sinners to Christ, who saves from the coming wrath (1 Thess 1.10). Wright is certainly on a program to move away from the individualism of modernity, but we ought not go further than the text. God is concerned with individuals as well as corporate structures.

Also, I certainly don't agree that Jesus never spoke of his second coming. Although difficult in places, the eschatological discourses of Jesus cannot be limited to the destruction of Jerusalem. The new perspective comes out in places as well. In the chapter on judgment, he writes that God's verdict will be on the basis of the "entire life led" which is another way of saying by obedience or works. I want to agree with Wright that obedience is absolutely necessary for salvation, but the basis of our salvation is Christ crucified and risen. Our obedience flows from a salvation given to faith in Christ. Finally, if one did not know better, you'd think that he was the first one who is actually teaching the biblical view of heaven as a new earth. Certainly, many Christians are confused on this issue but there have been many theologians before Wright teaching resurrection and a new earth (not least the Dutch Reformed tradition: Berkouwer, Bavinck, Hoekema, Berkhof, & Randy Alcorn and David Lawrence).

Friends call him "Tom" -- and, at this point, Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright has friends around the world, eagerly looking for his next visit and his next book. There's an air of C.S. Lewis about the bishop of Durham.

Nearly a decade ago, he became a sensation among American journalists for touring the country with Marcus Borg, the two of them cast as a pair of dueling Bible scholars and co-authors of a still very popular book, "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions." What drew headlines coast to coast was that, in each city along their tour, the crowds were larger than anyone envisioned. I recall reporting on this myself, double checking to make sure the claims were true -- that thousands of people, rather than hundreds, were hungry to hear truly gifted scholars debate details of Jesus' life and ministry.

That year, Borg played the provocateur, skeptical about many traditional claims concerning Jesus. However, since that time, Borg's own path has veered right into what he calls "The Heart of Christianity" and his recent books are read by thousands of regular churchgoers across the U.S.

That year, Tom Wright played what I can best describe as the C.S. Lewis role. In many of Tom's books, he even writes in Lewis' nuts-and-bolts voice and measured cadence. Many Americans may have forgotten the role Lewis played as a Christian titan in the popular media of his era. In his heyday, before "The Chronicles of Narnia" eclipsed everything else he wrote, Lewis was famous as "a Christian apologist," meaning that he'd go anywhere and stand toe to toe with anyone to defend his orthodox view of the faith.

The truth about this more recent pairing is that Wright and Borg both studied at Oxford and both share a passion for grappling with both the latest historical research into the biblical record -- and a passion for stirring up the church into a vigorous force for change in the world. The two "foes" still disagree on many points, but they're getting closer and closer to an all-out, rabble-rousing appeal to the Christian church to rise up, take a daring step away from its all-too-individualistic focus on saving "my" soul. They both want to see Christians creatively dive into the work of healing this broken world.

What's Tom saying now that's so daring and urgent?
There's no way to fully capture a book so full of fascinating insights as "Surprised by Hope" in just a couple of lines. But, hey, I'm a trained journalist, so I'm going to try. Before we turn to our Q and A with Tom himself, here are a few lines from his new book that I think suggest the daring voice that speaks from this volume.

By the time these lines appear in Tom's book (around page 200), he already has argued that Christians have a sadly muddled view of what the Bible and classical Christianity teach about resurrection, heaven and the mission of the church. One core stone in that foundation is that we are called, not to focus on escaping from evil bodies and an evil Earth into a heavenly realm -- but, instead, we are called to work with God to heal and renew his Creation in a glorious new way.

Tom writes: "As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God's promised new heavens and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new and gloriously embodied reality ... then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought in consequence."

Then, a little more than a page later, Tom links this argument with the New Testament in this way: "For the first Christians, the ultimate salvation was all about God's new world, and the point of what Jesus and the apostles were doing when they were healing people or being rescued from shipwreck or whatever was that this was a proper anticipation of that ultimate salvation, that healing transformation of space, time and matter. The future rescue that God had planned and promised was starting to come true in the present.
"We are saved not as souls but as wholes."

For many readers, it's time to rethink our assumptions about what Tom Wright is saying. I actually finished reading Tom's new book with a grin.

I'm thinking: I'll bet there are a bunch of people out there for whom this is the first Tom Wright book they'll own. And, I'll bet there are some pulpits out there from which this is the first Tom Wright book that'll be quoted in a sermon.

I loved N.T. Wright's newest book, Surprised by Hope. He explores the meat of the Christian hope, what he calls the after-afterlife.

Wright addresses the misconceptions (a.k.a. bad theology) that's infiltrated not just the world (i.e. reincarnation), but also Christianity (i.e. when we all get to heaven).

The belief in Jesus' physical resurrection is on the line here, folks. If you believe in Jesus' physical resurrection, if you believe that he is the firstfruits, than you have to believe that we do will experience that physical resurrection. The whole earth (which now groans) will experience it.

Wright turns the gospel message upside-down. No, he turns how we talk about the gospel message upside-down. It begins with an overarching story--God's plan of redemption for all of creation. Within that, individual salvation fits.

He then talks about why it's important in the here and now, in areas such as justice, art, and evangelism (are you getting a feel for why I'm passionate about this?). He's hard on all sides. Somehow Wright is one of the few people who can point out the faults of everyone specifically (moderns, you're doing this; postmoderns, you're doing this; liberals, you're doing this; conservatives, you're doing this) and still be liked by all parties. Personally, I'm a dispensationalist (which means, in my view, that Wright and I may disagree on some middle stuff, but we absolutely agree on the end, we absolutely agree that this end is the important part, and we absolutely agree on our present course of action). Wright's hard on dispensationalist (and for good reason). I will say that he has a generalized and limited view on dispensationalist. Maybe he understands more but for simplicity's sake boils it down. Maybe he only hear's the loudest dispensationalist (with whom I probably don't agree). But that's beside the point to me.

The point is, Jesus' resurrection leads to the resurrection (redemption) of the world, and somehow our participation in God's kingdom work in the present contributes to that (although it doesn't bring it about--God brings it about).

I recommend this book for a solid look at eschatology and its integral part to our daily theology.

Surprised by Hope by Bishop N. T. Wright is a defense of the traditional eschatology of the mainstream church. Wright is quite eloquent and I always learn something when I read his books. This one is no exception. Here Wright journeys through the good, the bad, and the ugly landscape of current eschatology and compares it with his take on the beliefs of the early Christian believers. From time to time on this journey he ventures briefly onto more progressive roads-less-travelled, but (frustratingly for me!) he always retreats back into the safe haven of traditional orthodoxy. Wright does envision a future with hope - a hope based squarely in the resurrection of Christ - but he comes short of embracing the radical hope of a complete and ultimate cosmic renewal and unity in Christ, saying, "One cannot forever whistle 'There's a wideness in God's mercy' in the darkness of Hiroshima..." (p. 180). Those who still espouse that particular "wideness" will be disappointed by Wright's theory of hell: one in which sinners are stripped of their humanity and become "beings that were once human but now are not" who are "beyond hope" and "beyond pity" existing forever in "an ex-human state... no longer [exciting] in themselves or others the natural sympathy some feel even for the hardened criminal" (p. 182-183). This, despite the book's title, is not the kind of hope that entails the glorious vision of God as "all in all".

There are hints of Jurgen Moltmann in Wright's thoughts and concepts, but the hope which surprises him is not nearly as startling and comprehensive as that put forth by Moltmann. Consider this from Moltmann's The Coming of God: "True hope must be universal, because its healing future embraces every individual and the whole universe. If we were to surrender hope for as much as one single creature, for us God would not be God." (p. 132). The parts of the book that reflected Moltmann were the most enjoyable to me.

Let me also add that one of my concerns in this book is Wright's caricature of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It is either a caricature or Wright does not fully understand Teilhard. Chardin comes across in this book as something of a secular progressive who was looking starry-eyed into a glorious future accomplished by a godless evolution alone. This is simply not what Teilhard taught or believed.

Having mentioned a couple of my concerns, let me happily say that there are some great concepts and paragraphs throughout the book - too many for me to quote here. But I will indulge you with one on the subject of what Wright calls collaborative eschatology: "Because the early Christians believed that resurrection had begun with Jesus and would be completed in the great final resurrection on the last day, they believed that God had called them to work with him, in the power of the Spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness. It was not merely that God had inaugurated the 'end'; if Jesus, the Messiah, was the End in person, God's-future-arrived-in-the-present, then those who belonged to Jesus and followed him and were empowered by his Spirit were charged with transforming the present, as far as they were able, in light of that future" (Page 46).

My take on the book is that it is very well written, it is a joy to read, and it will be especially appreciated by those who want to see an outstanding apologetic on orthodox amillennialism from a perspective they may not have encountered before.

As an even more hopeful companion to this volume, I would highly recommend William H. Willimon's newest book, Who Will Be Saved? (ISBN-10: 0687651190).

The title is thought catching, especially in view of the inferences aroused by the similarity with other titles of other good books.

This book is a great summary exposition of Early Christian understanding of Heaven. Sometimes it requires careful attention to follow the thought process. We read it aloud and it was a glorious experience. It is thought transforming and a wonderful antidote to the sentimental, airy-fairy way in which heaven has been thought of or discussed for a very long time.

The summary thought that I understood goes something like this: Wright reaffirms that God made a good world. It is not a disposable world. Heaven will gather up all the good that people have contributed through the ages (recognized or unrecognized) and add that material to another transforming and creative act that will enable Jesus to rule and for this world to become the good world God originally created. THe destiny of those who believe God is to be able to participate in that forever.

To be honest, I have shied away from N.T. Wright for some time, having heard talk of tension and controversy. But browsing in my local library, I decided to take the plunge. Once again, I am happy I did! N.T. Wright does exactly what he intends: stand the hope of bodily resurrection and the new creation before his readers and ask where that hope leads us. Though Wright seems to think he will be met with controversy for this statement of hope, I found myself in general agreement, almost amazed that his view needed defending within the church!

Surprised By Hope is written as a corrective against "popular" Christian thought on heaven, the "afterlife", our mission and our place in the world. Wright shows with great clarity that our hope for the future is not in a distant heaven, but in a new creation. He declares again and again the goodness of God's creation, which though marred, he intends to restore and remake. He calls us to a life of action, that sees every Christlike deed as an act of building for the kingdom, something that will last, and not be wasted. Thus, rather than being highly cerebral, Wright tries at every turn to remind the reader that what he is saying has implications for the here and now.

Heaven and paradise, hell, purgatory - all are covered in his attempt to elucidate eschatology for the reader. Purgatory is rejected powerfully. Hell is handled with some kid gloves. And heaven and paradise are described in depth as the temporary residence on the road to resurrection for those who are part of the new creation. Some within his own tradition may find his handling of these three startling. I did not. However, I know there are many in my own local body who would be much more taken aback. In the end, the new creation, the merger of heaven and earth once sin and death are once and for all dealt with in full (Christ's resurrection a precursor to this) provide the backdrop for this and the rest of the book.

This is not about just reshaping Christian teaching so that it can match up better, so that our eulogies and funerary practices are more in line with scripture. It is about responding to the new creation initiated within us by the bodily resurrection of Jesus himself. While we will not remake the world into some idyllic Garden by our own action, we will bring God no glory, and will have quite missed God's point, if we get caught up in a "ticket to heaven" mentality and fail to live and grow as his new creation. Thus he will likely alienate those on both sides of the theological and political spectrum. The book is a call to be about more than just what is "spiritual", while not drifting away into a social gospel that is detached from the power of a risen savior:

"...the task of the church between ascension and parousia is therefore set free both from self-driven energy that imagines it has to build God's kingdom all by itself and from the despair that supposes it can't do anything until Jesus comes again. We do not "build the kingdom" all by ourselves, but we do build for the kingdom. Al that we do in faith, hope, and love in the present, in obedience to our ascended Lord and in the power of his Spirit, will be enhanced and transformed at his appearing (p. 143)..."

Wright makes many attempts at lightening the mood through humor (e.g. p. 207),and though not always accomplishing his objective, the intent is appreciated. In general, I found the tone of the entire book to be patient, allowing for questions as they might arise, yet unyielding and definitive when it came to the gospel. While coming from an entirely different tradition than my own, I felt like I was hearing a message from a long-time friend, one who felt comfortable pointing out misdirection knowing it would be received in love. Wright comes across as an authority, grasping the biblical data and able to handle it with great dexterity, and not just a scholar with an axe to grind. There is some disjointedness and repetition, due to the fact that this book is the collection and reworking of a number of lectures given by the author. But I did not find this a major distraction.

While there is much I agree with Wright in this book, there were a number of things that left me in a mood for quibbling. On page 216 (and then scattered, deliberately placed references throughout) he describes his intent to record his "conviction that [Third World debt remission] is the number one moral issue of our day." While it is his book, and he can freely record his conviction in whatever he sees fit, I know not nearly enough about the subject to either support or argue with him on the matter. I expect he intends it as an example of where our understanding of the new creation already begun should have real actionable results in the now, but without more discussion of why this example is fitting, I would have to say it is a failure to get his point across. It instead invites argument and debate.

Where he discusses the sacraments, especially the Eucharist in pages 273-276, I was unimpressed by the vague wording used. Though I see him aiming at redirecting us from understanding Communion as symbol-only, towards an actual, though "new creation", partaking of Christ, I don't think this was necessary or beneficial to the overall flow of the text. Once again, though it is related to the topic, his own particular view on the matter may cause more friction in getting the major theme of the book across since it is clearly much harder to swallow and not foundational to the topic (my opinion, of course).

I find myself in disagreement with Wright that, "during his earthly ministry Jesus said nothing about his return." (p. 125). While he does raise some interesting points, I am simply not convinced by his argument. His point is not to question the truth of the Christian claim of Jesus' return (as he makes very clear), but the idea that Jesus himself taught that he would. To be fair, his argument (p. 128) attempts to put Jesus' own statement regarding the "Son of Man" in the "proper" context of Daniel 7 and messianic expectation, and should be given some careful consideration before moving on. As well, his comments on parousia and royal presence are helpful to the overall flow of the book even if one does disagree with his original contention about Jesus' own teaching.

In discussing the destiny of those who are not a part of the "new creation" (pp. 182-183), discussing hell, he is by his own admission rather speculative. I'd have to say his speculations didn't help clarify anything for me. But such is the way with speculations, and his approach was certainly not combative in this instance.

A final point of interest, which at first I found a tedious stretch, was his noting that Jesus is mistaken for a gardener at the tomb. To Wright, this takes on nuance and meaning as Christ is the new Adam, the tender of God's creation (p. 210). And while I slightly rolled my eyes when I first read this comment (which was not the only mention of the idea), and am still rather guarded about putting much faith or credence in it, it is interesting. Wouldn't it be just like God - one more time to try to get his message across.

The book was very enjoyable to read, and its subject matter is essential for a proper view of our mission and God's purposes. It was handled by Wright in a slightly defensive way, but the defense is artfully as well as passionately given.

For three months in the summer of 2004, I labored through N.T. Wright's massive book, The Resurrection of the Son of God - an important work for anyone interested in the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection of the Son of God significantly deepened my appreciation for Easter. Wright's research bolstered my confidence in the historicity of the New Testament accounts, but more than that, it helped me to understand why the Resurrection was necessary and why it is so important to Christian theology.

Needless to say, I was happy to discover that Wright was working on an edited, popular-level supplement to The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fast forward to 2008. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church has been released, a sequel of sorts to Simply Christian. (And yes, the allusions to C.S. Lewis' works Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy are an intentional advertising gimmick, although readers quickly discover that the comparisons to Lewis do have some merit.)

In Surprised by Hope, Wright attempts to do three things. First, he exposes current Christianity's muddled views of the afterlife by taking us through the historical evidence for and the theological explanation of Jesus' resurrection. Second, he answers questions regarding eschatology that necessarily arise from his Resurrection theology - showing how his eschatological framework best fits the New Testament witness. Third, he shows how the Christian's future hope of resurrection forms the foundation for current social action, evangelism, and spirituality.

For those familiar with Wright's previous work on the resurrection, Surprised by Hope will not surprise you (no pun intended). For years now, Wright has been advocating a return to a more biblical, more creation-centered, more Jewish understanding of the future hope of new heavens and new earth. Other theologians have been speaking up about this subject too, in hopes that a more robust view of heaven will reenergize our Kingdom efforts on earth. (Michael Wittmer's Heaven Is a Place on Earth and Randy Alcorn's textbook-styled Heaven come to mind.)

But Surprised by Hope stands out in the amount of material that Wright is able to incorporate into a single volume and in the moving way in which he makes his case. This book carries an emotional resonance rarely encountered among works of theology. At times, Wright's description of the Christian hope so moved me that I found myself wiping away tears.

Surprised by Hope contains many paradoxes, which is what we have come to expect from a theologian like Wright. Here are a few examples:

Wright argues forcefully for Christ's bodily resurrection (to the "Amens" of his conservative readers), but then shows why that must necessarily inform our view of the Christian's future hope (and the picture is significantly different [i.e. grander!] than what conservatives have generally taught).

He devotes significant space to eschatology, firmly disagreeing with the Preterist position, while admitting that Jesus' prophecies concerned the Fall of Jerusalem.

Dispensationalists will not countenance his interpretation of Revelation or Daniel, and yet Amillennialists will be surprised by his refusal to spiritualize the Kingdom in ways that detract from an earthy application.

Reformed readers will have trouble with Wright's "New Perspective on Paul" that surfaces in a couple of places, and yet they will applaud his Kuyperian stance on the lordship of Christ over all creation.

Roman Catholics will disagree with Wright's decisive rejection of purgatory and praying to the saints, but some Protestants may be equally puzzled about Wright leaving room for Christians to pray for the dead (not for their salvation, mind you, but only for their rest!)

Traditionalists will be glad to see Wright rejecting universalism and affirming the existence of hell, and yet, Wright's innovative view of hell (in terms of dehumanization) is more akin to C.S. Lewis than to anything clearly taught in Scripture. (Wright's view serves as middle way between annihilationism and the traditional view of eternal torment.)

Pastors would do well to read the final chapters of Surprised by Hope. Wright gives food for thought on the nature of mission work and evangelism. He also offers practical advice on reinvigorating our anemic Easter celebrations.

Surprised by Hope will be one of Wright's most widely-read books. Though readers should proceed with caution regarding some of Wright's proposals, the wheat in this book far outweighs the chaff.

"Surprised by Hope" is a good book when N. T. Wright expounds on biblical sources of revelation as to what happens to believing Christians after death. Our mainstream view of heaven as a place of eternal incorporeal bliss, he says, is mistaken. What we call "heaven" is only a short intermediate stage, before the Second Coming, and the resurrection of all who have believed, who will then be fully new creations, and live in the earthly Kingdom of God. His long discussion of this issue is revelatory, and extremely important. This book is well written and (I think) orthodox in its statements on the bodily resurrection of Jesus; the Ascension; the new creation;the first fruits; the resurrection of the dead and the Kingdom of God. His views on Final Judgment, hell, purgatory and the importance of the writings of most of the Church Fathers and theology developed during the long history of Christianity are confusing; sometimes garbled; often summary; overly speculative and in a few places incorrect. For one thing, Karl Rahner, S.J. was not a conservative theologian! The fact that Wright seems not to countenance even the possibility of any revelation of the Holy Spirit in the Church after, maybe, Origen or Tertullian seems a bit short sighted, and is probably intentional. The fact that his briefest of references to Thomas Aquinas are essentially dismissive is one of the problems with the later half of this book. On theological matters Wright is no Aquinas. On a number of major theological questions, Wright allows his own speculative mind to run free, leading to a number of dubious conclusions based on modernist sentiments, while at the same time he seems to criticize Aquinas and others for the same thing (engaging in speculation, while being men of their own time). The orthodox Christian will feel the need to part company with Wright on a number of topics including his belief that for most people, there are no real consequences of their sin, once death occurs. The only issue is whether the person who dies in sin has in his life consistently and contumaciously chosen the fundamental option (not his phrase, but that's what he means) to reject God and do evil, such a person's got a real problem Wright believes, but Wright is sure it's not the fires of hell. All other unrepentant sinners not brazen enough to full reject God, whose lives were not holy or good, but not all that bad either, go directly to the heavenly hotel as full-fledged saints, equal in glory and majesty to the Virgin Mary and all the martyrs. So in a sense there is no Divine Justice that must be appeased, and hope of Wright's type flows without a thought for guilt or recourse to the unrepentant of many stripes. A final judgment: Wright is excellent when he stays within his element: scriptural scholarship; but theology in the lager sense is not his strong suit. This is a good book on the issue of life-after-life-after-death, which he writes about very convincingly.

I remember reading through N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God last spring and thinking about how critical it is to the Church today to have a revitalization of her understanding of resurrection, heaven, and eschatology as a whole. As I read this book I lamented all the errors of eschatological thought and teaching in the Church. I loved the book and I wanted all of the Church to read it. But at its daunting 800+ pages, I knew that its impact on the Church would be limited. I wanted the book to be smaller and more accessible. I longed for the book to reappear in another, shorter form. This spring, when Wright's Surprised by Hope came out, I got my wish.
This book is simply marvelous. Wright begins by noting the confusion throughout the world right now regarding questions about life after death. He talks about how this confusion has seeped into the Church. We in the Church have, for long time now, forgotten what the Bible actually teaches about heaven, hell, and the resurrection. We have settled for an escapist eschatology that sees the ultimate purpose for humanity as being sucked into the sky for some disembodied eternal bliss.
This eschatology, or lack of, has been horribly detrimental to the Church. It has taught us to either flee from the realms of ecology and social justice because God is concerned about the "spiritual" and not the physical (Conservative Protestantism) or to care about them without much good theological reason (mainline Protestantism). If we want to actually appreciate, care and love creation and each other, then a reworking of our eschatology is in order.
This is not simply a question about millennial views, it is a question about how we view the world, it is about the cornerstone of our faith, the resurrection of Jesus. We must first ask the question, `Did Jesus rise from the dead?' and, if he did what does it mean? Wright answers the first with a resounding yes. This does not mean that he proves the resurrection beyond a shadow of a doubt. He knows that this appeals to history, but is appeals to so much more:

"What I am suggesting is that faith in Jesus risen from the dead transcends but includes what we call history and what we call science. Faith of this sort is not blind belief, which rejects all history and science. Nor is it simply - which would be much safer! - a belief that inhabits a totally different sphere, discontinuous from either, in a separate watertight compartment. Rather, this kind of faith, which like all modes of knowledge is defined by the nature of its object, is faith in the creator God, the God who promised to put all things to rights at the last, the God who (as a sharp point where those two come together) raised Jesus from the dead within history, leaving evidence that demands an explanation from the scientist as well as anybody else." (p.71-72)

I appreciate both his commitment to orthodox Christianity and his denial of the rationalism of the Enlightenment project. He proposes a new (or very old) way to approach the epistemological question of the resurrection and parallels each to an encounter with the risen Christ: faith (Thomas), hope (Paul), and love (Peter). (p. 72-73)
"Love is the deepest mode of knowing because it is love that, while completely engaging with reality other than itself, affirms and celebrates that other-than-self reality." (p. 73)
So what does the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth mean? Everything in the world and outside it, according to Wright. Our exclimation when we hear that Jesus is risen from the dead should not be, "We can now go to heaven"! But should be, "New Creation has begun!"

"Hope is what you get when you suddenly realize that a different worldview is possible, a worldview in which the rich, the powerful, and the unscrupulous do not after all have the last word." (p. 75)
"In a world of systematic injustice, bullying, violence, arrogance, and oppression, the thought that there might come a day when the wicked are firmly put in their place and the poor and weak are given their due is the best news there can be." (p. 137)
The good news of Easter is that this has already happened. And the good news of the second coming is that it will happen. This is inaugurated eschatology at its finest. Jesus has already conquered the powers of the world and the power of death, and he will conquer them when he comes again. Until then, Jesus himself remains both present and strangely absent from the world.

The bridge between the resurrection of Jesus and the second coming is the Church. Our job is to proclaim in our words and actions that the enemy, death, has been defeated, and a day will come when all will be renewed.
"[T]he task of the Church between ascension and parousia is therefore set free both from the self-driven energy that imagines it has to build God's kingdom all by itself and from the despair that supposes it can't do anything until Jesus comes again. We do not `build the kingdom' all by ourselves, but we do build for the kingdom. All that we do in faith, hope, and love in the present, in obedience to our ascended Lord in the power of his Spirit, will be enhanced and transformed at his appearing." (p. 143)

It really does change everything. Wright writes (no pun intended, I promise) at the end of the book about practicing resurrection. He says it should change our view of worship, scripture, prayer, justice, mission, beauty, and everything else. When we came out of the grave of baptism, we entered a whole new world that was started by the resurrection of Jesus and will be completed when he returns. Our job is to live in that world.
I would highly recommend this book to all. Whether you have read a lot of Wright, Moltmann, Pannenberg, and the like or whether you have never touched a theology book. I would recommend this to an amillennialist and I would require it for a premillennialist.

"The universal early Christian belief was that Jesus had already been demonstrated publicly to be Israel's Messiah and the world's true Lord through his resurrection. That, as we have seen, is the whole point of the Christian story. And if we believe it and pray, as he taught us, for God's kingdom to come on earth as in heaven, there is no way we can rest content with major injustice in the world." (p. 216)