Wright thinks that Christians are God’s agents in transforming the world, with work to do now, but also even in the coming Kingdom: he thinks there will be things still needing to be put right even after Christ comes again (DY: so the Kingdom will not be perfect?).
But, in the present world, Christians need to put effort in to be transformed themselves so that they will be able to do these tasks; they need to be complete human beings (DY: what about infants who die?).
This means engaging in behaviours to change wrong brain patterns into right ones (DY: what about Christians with medical brain defects?).
In the present world, they need to get involved in politics and call earthly rulers to account (DY: what sort of fuss are they to make when earthly rulers don’t do the right things?).
Christians, unlike pagans and Jews, are able to do the things they should (DY: is this empirically true?).

Christians receive different rewards for what their efforts achieve, though this reward is the natural result of their managing to be more transformed than other Christians; if some Christians start with more natural advantages (say, having been brought up to have a better character) this somehow doesn’t count, because only those choices we consciously make as Christians count (Chapter 6 Section 4. DY: I don’t know what Wright is saying here about what counts and what doesn’t and why. And, again, what about Christians with medical brain defects, and those with no chance to be transformed such as infants who die, or the thief on the cross who had no chance to change his brain patterns by years of practice? Also, will Christians who have not been as diligent as others or who have been lax to varying degrees be in different ‘castes’ in the Kingdom?).

Plenty of good stuff in this interview. Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to the new book. Already pre-ordered it. He continues to deliver the goods. Enjoyed it.

-Mig

While some of your points are akin to the latest wave of atheist authors, you may be surprised to be in agreement with many Christians to a degree. Some comments that I’ve tried to limit in scope to relating to the author and subject of this post…

Christianity has much to apologize for, from the Crusades to the violent behavior toward homosexuals and abortionists, but this does not constitute having no evidence of virtuous behavior except in rare cases. I’ll limit examples to ones I have heard the author mention:
• The observation of the early church from outsiders included care for not only their own poor, but also others, and philanthropy towards outsiders (see the emperor Julian and historian Eusebius).
• The work of Christians during the second century in caring for those stricken by the plagues while others fled (see Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity,” which also includes a chapter on virtue).
• The work of Christians in establishing hospitals (observe how many have names of Christian origin).
• Pope John Paul II’s role in the fall of the Berlin Wall.
• Dr. Martin Luther King’s work to end segregation
• Bishop Desmond Tutu’s work in forgiveness and reconciliation on South Africa
• The present work of Christians in the author’s own diocese: a day center for the elderly, furniture mending shop run by disabled Christians, etc.

While there may be evidence for more than rare exceptions, there is still little difference statistically between “Christians” and others in America when counting divorce rate for instance, but the results are varying on different issues and complex in cause (see Barna’s research for example). But again, it is because of such poor display of virtue that its rebirth in the church is appropriate.

Regarding politics, the author is a far cry from being a right-wing Christian – especially since he is British – and has leveled similar criticisms of Bush, the American Government and the “War on Terror” at the expense of criticism by many, while standing for issues of social justice, third-world debt and ecology at the expense of criticism from others. In fact, very much in the tradition of the biblical prophets (including John the Baptizer, Jesus and subsequently the early Christians) who called the ruling authorities to account, the author serves as a member in the House of Lords, offering a prophetic critique. (In this arena you might the books “Jesus For President,” “Myth of a Christian Nation,” or “God’s Politics” engaging and surprising. Not all of us confuse the USA with a “city on a hill” whose purpose is to “rid the world of evil,” nor claim Allah is the same as the Judeo-Christian God, nor do we all believe the Obama’s America is the “last, best hope of Earth” for that matter.)

As far as an inherently genocidal, tribal “God,” I don’t think the author believes in that God either, but rather the God best explained by Jesus – a point at which once again the author has been criticized. It is precisely this Christ-shaped God the author proposes calls His followers to Christ-shaped living.

your comment is interesting (goes against the grain of comments – including my own).

Curious: “beginning with yesterday”?

In any case, what Christians “are” and what Christians are called to “be” are not always the same.

I wouldn’t blame God for the sins of his people.

And if someone says God told Bush to do something, it doesn’t mean that God actually told Bush to do something.

Jesus said that you (sue) will know them (Christians) by their love. So because someone calls themselves “Christian” doesn’t mean they forsure are.

Or are in any sense more virtuous in 2010 than any of the 4 billion human beings on this planet who are not Christian.

Remember George W Bush.

Most right wing Christians were over-joyed that “God’s” man was in the White House.

Referring of course to the same inherently genocidal tribalistic “God” that told George to invade Iraq and initiate the never-ending global war on terror—whatever that could possibly be.

I am looking forward to reading Wright on this subject, especially since my other favorite author has written so much on it…