If there is any one subject that has been central to N. T. Wright’s teaching and writing ministry, it just might be the gospel. From academic books and articles to semi-academic and more popular works, explorations of themes related to the gospel fill the pages of Wright’s works. And after years of paragraphs and chapters explaining the gospel, Wright published a full-length, popular-level book on the subject, titled plainly enough, Simply Good News.
Much of Wright’s efforts when teaching about the gospel have been to clear up common misunderstandings about the gospel in modern Christianity. For example, it is common to talk about sharing the gospel in the church today, and more often than not, sharing the gospel refers to giving someone the plan of salvation (usually in terms of sin, forgiveness, and going to heaven). Wright reminds us very simply, however, that the gospel is good news, not good advice, and news is about something that happened.[1] So most precisely, the gospel is about what happened to Jesus and through Jesus. Another common misunderstanding Wright steadfastly seeks to clear up—perhaps one of the most well-known and staunchest themes of his writings—is that the goal of God’s saving work in Christ is not “going to heaven when you die”; rather, it is new creation, specifically resurrection and a new heavens and new earth.
“Much of Wright’s efforts when teaching about the gospel have been to clear up common misunderstandings about the gospel in modern Christianity.”
So, in his writings about the gospel, here are a few major themes Wright emphasizes that I think are very helpful for us to grasp hold of.
- Wright labors to clarify that the gospel is a news announcement about Jesus’ resurrection and kingship. One simple way to see this is to pay attention to the gospel sermons recorded in the book of Acts. They always culminate in announcing Jesus’ resurrection and his status as King or Lord.
- Wright helps us see that the gospel is about more than getting sins forgiven and going to heaven. To be clear, it is not about less than that. Those are true and they are two of the benefits of the gospel. But they are not equivalent to the gospel, nor are they the full extent of the accomplishment of the gospel. Again, the good news is that Jesus is King, risen from the dead. And the implications and benefits of that are many and far-reaching, including the redemption of the entire cosmos. Wright repeats these implications every chance he gets.
- Wright makes sure we don’t miss that the ultimate destiny the gospel offers us personally is resurrection—rather than being eternal souls flitting from cloud to cloud. Since the ultimate goal is new creation, that entails our resurrection to glorified eternal bodies like Jesus’ resurrection body (see Romans 8:18-24).
Each of those areas of emphasis are very helpful corrections to the over-individualized and over-spiritualized gospel that has been common in evangelical churches for a long time. Nevertheless, I wonder if the way Wright communicates this correction might actually lead to an overcorrection.
Cosmic Redemption vs. Individual
As is often the case, sometimes our greatest strength brings with it corresponding weaknesses. We noted in chapter 1 that one of Wright’s greatest strengths is his ability to grasp and communicate the big picture. He majors in helping people see the overall flow of thought of a Bible book and how that connects to the big story of the Bible. In doing this, therefore, Wright emphasizes the cosmic scope of redemption, focusing on the restoration of all things in a new heavens and new earth as we just mentioned.
Also as noted above, it’s clear from reading Wright that part of the reason he emphasizes this is a reaction to the opposite emphasis which has been the main theme of popular evangelicalism, namely individual salvation—the gospel is about saving souls so they can go to heaven when they die. But in reacting to this, I think he’s swung the pendulum too far the opposite way.
More often than not, the individual and his salvation is almost lost in Wright’s teaching. Sharing the part of the gospel that’s about being forgiven is almost put down by him as less meaningful or even less biblical than the big story of the redemption of the entire cosmos. Telling people that they will go to heaven after they die is almost made to sound theologically irresponsible.
“Telling people that they will go to heaven after they die is almost made to sound theologically irresponsible.”
Now let me be clear: I don’t think personal salvation should be pitted against the redemption of the entire cosmos. Both are true according to the Bible. And in fact, every once in a while, Wright does pause to acknowledge that’s the case in a sentence or two. But the overall message Wright focuses on is that cosmic redemption is what really matters, and the tenor of Wright’s message is very much to put personal salvation off to the side and out of the way.
So, it seems to me that Wright loves the wide angle so much that he often loses the close-up. We mostly hear about the panorama of God’s saving purposes, and the individual is often lost in a sea of undefined faces that are part of the new creation. You’ve heard of “losing the forest for the sake of the trees”? It often feels in Wright’s writings that the opposite is true: you “lose the tree for the sake of the forest”—you lose the individual for the sake of the cosmos.
I understand that Wright is trying to correct the individualistic emphasis of the last hundred years of evangelicalism, in which the gospel was all about me and my salvation and even my discipleship. But while there’s certainly more to what God has achieved in Christ than that, there’s not less. Nevertheless, in making this correction, Wright has zoomed out so far that most of the time you can’t recognize any individuals in the picture.
“In making this correction, Wright has zoomed out so far that most of the time you can’t recognize any individuals in the picture.”
Therefore, when explaining what the gospel is, Wright almost always makes sure to mention that the gospel is not Jesus dying for your sins so you can go to heaven someday. To be fair, he believes in Jesus’ death and the hope of heaven, and in some cases, he’ll acknowledge that this sort of explanation of things is important. But he’s usually quick to point out that it’s too simplistic and too individualistic. Instead, according to Wright, we need to switch to a wide-angle lens so we can focus on the kingdom of God and new creation.[2]
What he hasn’t done well enough, it seems to me, is put the focus in the place that shows how both personal salvation and new creation fit together into a simple summary of the gospel. The result is often that, if you have been strongly influenced by N. T. Wright, you may find yourself talking about the gospel and salvation in big, broad terms like “new creation” and the “kingdom of God” with little to no talk about personal sin, the need for forgiveness, and personal salvation.
I think Wright’s approach to the redemption of the cosmos is more than just an issue of emphasis. I think the stress he places on that comes across as mis-ordering the relationship between human salvation and cosmic redemption. Wright therefore can speak of the gospel and the biblical narrative as being about a “God who, to renew creation, made covenant promises, and who has now kept those promises.”[3] 
“I think the stress he places on that comes across as mis-ordering the relationship between human salvation and cosmic redemption.”
Notice that he puts the renewal of creation as the aim, as the thing it’s all about. To be sure, that renewal includes human beings. But humans are viewed as only a part of the renewal of new creation—when humanity’s rebellion and humanity’s restoration are actually central to the biblical story. By contrast, all the emphasis on “new creation” ends up being fairly abstract and impersonal.
My concern is this: Reading Wright, it’s easy to walk away thinking that redemption of the entire cosmos is the main thing and the redemption of human beings is secondary to that—just one small part or even a mere means to that greater end. But that greater end is what really matters. This fundamentally mis-orders what the Bible says about the redemption of the earth and the cosmos, as well as what it says about the priority of human beings to God’s purposes for the earth.
The proper order, according to Romans 8, is that human salvation is the main thing and the whole creation benefits from that. That passage teaches that creation will come into its own liberation as a result of the redemption of God’s people not because it’s the main storyline but because humans are the key part of the main storyline, and creation is the place humans operate as the image of God. Therefore, the reason all of creation is out of whack and needs renewal is precisely because humans revolted against God and in some profound, inherent way, that had consequences for all of creation.
“The proper order, according to Romans 8, is that human salvation is the main thing and the whole creation benefits from that.”
We humans were created to rule over creation in union with God. When we broke that union, all of creation suffered as a consequence. So, when we humans come into our full redemption at the resurrection, creation itself will also finally be restored to proper working order. Thus, human redemption is the main thing, the ultimate plot line of the biblical story, and creation is the beneficiary of that. Unfortunately, I think the emphasis Wright places on the redemption of creation gives the wrong impression, which leads to an out-of-focus gospel.
So, I appreciate Wright reminding us that the gospel is a news announcement about what God has accomplished in and through Jesus and his death and resurrection. I also appreciate that he has helped us see that the benefits of the gospel are bigger and greater than getting my sins forgiven and going to heaven when I die. But I would love to see that very personal aspect of the gospel be brought out of the shadows and united more fully and centrally with resurrection and Jesus’ kingship that will culminate in a new heavens and new earth.
[1] See Wright, Simply Good News, 4ff.
[2] See, for example, Wright, Simply Good News, 65-66.
[3] Wright, Simply Good News, 72, emphasis added.
