As I mentioned previously, I've been working my way through N. T. Wright's newest book: Surprised By Hope. In the final third of this book he is discussing the implications of life after life after death for the local church and the lives of believers; how do we live out the consequences of the resurrection here and now? The first way in which Wright suggests that we ought to change our thinking and practices is in the area of salvation. He states that believers need to seriously rethink what salvation means in light of the fact that heaven is not our "final resting place" or our ultimate goal, as many Christians mistakenly believe. He makes some good points and raises some good questions. One that has particularly got me thinking is his question of whole salvation versus soul salvation. Whole salvation, he contends, is the salvation of the entire person, soul, mind, body, life, etc. Soul salvation is simply being saved from sin and to heaven, or something along those lines.
I applaud Wright for calling people to realize that you can't just get someone "saved" and then leave them in the exact condition in which you found them. The church I am a member of here in Raleigh, Treasuring Christ Church, emphasizes this point frequently. People need to hear the gospel, but they may also need help financially to get them out of a life of bondage to poverty, or counsel to help them get on track to get free from debt, or an education to free them from the slavery of illiteracy and ignorance, and the list could go on and on. So, I definitely understand what Wright means when he says we need to recapture a theology of whole salvation. However, I had a problem with his exegesis to get to this point. His main text was Mark 5 and the parallel passage in Matthew 9, which tell the story of the healing the woman with the issue of blood. My great trouble with Wright's exegesis was his translation, and subsequent interpretation, of Mark 5:34 and Matt 9:22. In Greek, both of these passages use the word sozo, which is commonly translated "to save." However, no major English version translates Mark 5:34 or Matt 9:22 as "saved." They all opt for another meaning of sozo; "healed," or "made well." Herein lies my main disagreement with Wright. It seems as if from his translation and exegesis of these passages that he believes this woman experienced whole salvation that day, obviously Jesus had no problem saying that she was "saved," and this ought to be our model for understanding salvation. I just don't see that in these passages. I do not believe that Jesus was making a pronouncement on this woman's spiritual condition, but rather her fleshly one: she was saved from her illness. After all, the text of Mark does go on to say "Go in peace and be healed (hugies) of your affliction." This leads me to my next problem with Wright's exegesis. By using these passages, which are devoid of any mention of the spiritual or forgiveness of sin or anything of that nature, Wright seems to forget these elements in his whole salvation paradigm. In short, he emphasizes the physical to the detriment of the spiritual.
I believe that he is on to something in his whole salvation theology. However, it seems to me that he has largely forgotten the spiritual aspect of salvation. If that is left out, there is little value in the rest of the equation. We must never put the salvation of souls in the back seat to social justice or meeting physical needs. This was the mistake of 20th century liberalism and it may very well make a reappearance in our time as well. We cannot rely on any organization, be it the government, civic clubs, or even the church, if all they are seeking to do is treat felt needs in order to somehow "save" individuals. Rather than embracing this distorted view of whole salvation, we need to embrace a real whole salvation; one that addresses the spiritual and the physical. We also must realize that just because we make efforts towards social justice and meeting the physical needs of new believers does not mean that God's purpose for all people is a comfortable, pain free existence. God may keep an individual right where he is, in poverty, or in physical illness in order to bring Himself most glory. And hold on, 'cause here comes a doozy, God may even call the wealthy and affluent to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and follow Him to the darkest corner of the globe! Thus, the question isn't "whole" salvation or "soul" salvation, that is too obvious. The real question is what does whole salvation really entail and how can we be a part of God's purposes to save sinners.
Please let me know what you think about this, I'm definitely looking for feedback as I continue to wrestle through these issues, especially how we can see the needs of people met in the context of the local church.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good thoughts. I agree that Wright's interpretation is confusing. However, I'm not convinced that he is actually claiming that the woman was spiritually saved at this moment. He seems only to be making the point that the salvation language is used throughout the New Testament not only in conjunction with spiritual salvation.
Regardless of whether most modern translations use "made well" or "healed" or whatever, the 1st century readers still saw the same word. And though in certain contexts it means "to be saved from natural dangers" and in others "to be saved from transcendent danger," it still is the same word, with the same basic realm of meaning. "To save." Jesus "saved" people from hell. Jesus "saved" people from sin. Jesus "saved" people from blindness. Jesus "saved" people from sickness, paralysis, leprosy, etc. While I think that its clear in scripture that being saved from hell and sin and death is much more important than being saved from blindness or disease, I think Wright's point is that the work of God and his people on this earth includes both. Of course, only God can save from sin, but he uses us through evangelism and preaching. Likewise, only God can actually heal someone from disease, but he can use us to provide healthcare, food, basic necessities, etc. And, from what I gather, this is Wright's point from the second part of the book (all of which I haven't read).
As far as Wright diminishing the spiritual side of salvation, I can understand why you would think that. He does not focus on it very much. Perhaps it is because the majority of his audience is evangelicals who, for the most part, already have a pretty firm grasp of the importance of evangelism and spiritual salvation. One thing I appreciate about Wright is that if he considers something as understood, obvious, irrelevant or adequately discussed elsewhere, he won't waste paper writing it again. Perhaps he considers this obvious or understood. Perhaps it is because he does not see it as relevant at all, though I'm not convinced this is the case.
Post a Comment