This is a great blog for understanding Wright and the New Perspective. I hope to read more from you.

Thank you!

1) If not a renewed earth, what does Paul mean by telling us that the creation will be set free from its bondage to decay (Rom 8:20-21)?

2) Wright’s emphasis on the reality of the new earth is a way of asserting that we ought to care for the earth now in a slightly different manner from what I think your comment presupposes. The way he talks, if we are to live on a new earth then, then just as we should try to live without sins of pride now because that is God’s ultimate goal for humanity, so we should live in ways that display wise stewardship over the earth, as that is also a part of God’s ultimate goal for humanity. Our lives are to be a foretaste of and signpost towards the fullness of the new creation in as many ways as is possible. Saying, “We shouldn’t care for the earth; it will all be fixed in the end,” is just like saying, “We shouldn’t bother to be humble now; God will make us humble in the end.” It is the connection between the end and what our lives ought to be now that Wright employs to argue that proper stewardship of the earth ought to be included in Christian discipleship. That angle is lost if God’s ultimate intention for us is not to exercise his wise rule on a new earth, in fulfillment of his original intentions expressed in Genesis 1.

Your first paragraph is definitely helpful to me in understanding these things, thanks. I think, though, I would still rather think we are living the kingdom now rather than the things we are doing now being for the future.

Second paragraph, I don’t think it is particularly biblical to say there will be a Wrightian renewed earth. All these things need judicious interpretation. There are better ways of avoiding gnosticism. And even within Wright it doesn’t matter whether we care for the earth, since whatever state it finishes up in now there will be a renewed earth. So we should stress ordinary moral living, which would include care for all sorts of things. Finally, it is a particular taste to be thrilled at the prospect of living forever on an earth much like now, not one I share!

On your other point, I think that emphasizing that we will live in a renewed earth helps people to avoid the incipient gnosticism of much of contemporary Christian thought. Many Christians do seem to think that caring for the earth is pointless because we are going to escape this place anyway. I think that being reminded that we will live eternally on a renewed earth is one of many good biblical ways that we should use to encourage people to be good stewards of the earth now. Above all, I feel like it is worthy to point out because it is biblical, and it can help Christians to understand better the whole story as it stretches from Genesis 1 to the end of Revelation.

I understood the point you were making on ‘not in vain’, but don’t see the specific connection with d)!

On the nature of the coming Kingdom, the point is that, given the problems, it looks like the Kingdom will have to be so different from earth now that it is futile suggesting there is any significant project in trying to get people to see that they should not think they will ‘go to Heaven’ but be in a renewed earth.

The “labor not in vain” point is related to how this verse specifically plays into Wright’s construal of the relationship of our work now and the future kingdom. He takes it to mean that our labor now is not in vain because God will take up the products of that labor (which is really his labor through us) and use them in his construction of the new creation.

You are right that we just disagree about whether Wright’s portrayal is a good thing or not. I just don’t see the problems that you do, and perhaps that is because I see more mystery in Wright’s claims than you do. To all the questions like “Will we stub our toes?” I feel like the implicit answer is “No, that’s a part of what is bad and will be gone,” and then if one asks how, I think the answer is, “I don’t know; new bodies are like plants compared to the seeds in which we currently reside.” My imagination thus only gets excited when I think of the future in these terms because I think of all that is best in life being experienced without the taint of sin.

Revelations (21 & 22), “redemption” and “renewal” make sense, on judicious interpretation, in many possible ways. (I would like to see Wright’s spelling out of his mere suggestiveness to date on Rev 22.2, because what he says seems weird to me.)

Present responsible stewardship (and there are various things we might think ‘the Genesis mandate of creation stewardship’ comes to) of how things are now is not inimical to things being different in the future. And since things are said to be different in the future (thank goodness), talk of whether things have been renewed or replaced seems a semantic point. We ourselves being raised doesn’t need to be in anything very like the present cosmos nor as anything very like our present selves, again involving the semantics of what counts as being like or different. Even if we fail in our stewardship, as we do, and even if we totally destroy this present earth, this will not detract from how the future Kingdom will be. Just as people can be totally destroyed yet raised, so can the earth. Just getting on with moral Christian living, as in Romans 12 etc is what we should be about and this will include judicious stewardship of the earth. So consider, that if there were a conflict between doing the moral thing and stopping the earth (or Universe!) being blown up, then we should let the earth be blown up, confident that that will not compromise God’s future for us.

Andrew 23:

We seem to disagree on whether what is attractive to many people in Wright is a good thing! You say it is concretely meaningful for you to think such as: ‘we will still live on planet earth, and our activities then will include all that is best out of life now’. I think that if you start to use your imagination on how that might play out, you will find it doesn’t work, or at least that’s what happens with various scenarios when I try it!. To begin with something very simple: will anyone ever stub their toe!

It’s not clear to me what you disagree with in d). Especially as the ‘labour not in vain’ point doesn’t seem connected.