What do you think?
Rate this book
Simplemente cristiano: El por qué tiene sentido el cristianismo (Biblioteca Teologica Vida)
¿Por qué esperamos justicia? ¿Por qué deseamos la espiritualidad? ¿Por qué nos atrae la belleza? ¿Por qué son tan dolorosas las relaciones? Y ¿cómo podemos corregir el mundo? Estas no son solo preguntas incesantes con las cuales todas las generaciones tienen que lidiar, pero de acuerdo a N.T. Wright, más bien son el eco de aquella voz que percibimos levemente pero la cual anhelamos profundamente oír. De hecho, estas preguntas nos llevan al corazón de quien es Dios y lo que él quiere de nosotros. Por dos mil años, el cristianismo ha afirmado haber resuelto estos misterios y este reconocido erudito de la Biblia y obispo anglicano demuestra que todavía lo puede hacer hoy. Desde el resumen clásico de la fe de C.S. Lewis, Cristiandad Pura, no había existido otro erudito sabio y detallista que se hubiera tomado el tiempo para explicar el caso por la fe cristiana de abajo hacia arriba, asumiendo que el lector no tiene conocimiento (y tal vez sienta antipatía) de la religión en general y el cristianismo en particular.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
1288 people are currently reading
13284 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
461 books2,877 followersN. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 646 reviews
June 17, 2008
N.T. Wright never seems to settle on a single audience or a single purpose for this book, which makes it appear disorganized and ultimately renders it ineffective. He begins Simply Christians as a seeming apologetic, speaking of our longings for justice, truth, and beauty the same way C.S. Lewis argued from the existence of a moral sense to the existence of God, but he doesn't ever bring these arguments to convincing culmination.
Despite the book's subtitle "Why Christianity Makes Sense," Wright never really tells the reader why it does, and he often addresses the reader as though he or she has already assumed Christianity is more or less true. As an apologetic, therefore, the book is quite weak, and Wright seems to abandon this apologetic style part way through in order to switch to an introduction, finally wending his way back to the subtitle by the end of the book.
As an introduction to Christianity, however, the book is also inadequate, because it is not an organized overview and it is highly selective in what it covers; at times, the introductory portions seem also to take on a Sunday School tone.
Then Wright changes audiences and purposes yet again: he goes from apologetic for the non-Christian to and introduction for the uninformed Christian to admonishment for the practicing Christian. When he writes for this third audience, I think he is at his best. He addresses the problem of petty internal squabbles among Christians: are liturgical prayers or spontaneous prayers better? Is communion symbolic or more than symbolic? Is the Bible literal or figurative? How should we worship? Here Wright argues for a "simply Christian" attitude that would aim to transcend the differences between denominations and congregations. Here I think he makes his best points and says things Christian need to hear to understand that it is possible to differ on these issues without necessarily being divided as Christians. "It's time to give ourselves a shake," he says, "to recognize that different people need different kinds of help at different stages of their lives – and get on with it." If Wright had written this third book – this book addressed to squabbling Christians (each of whom thinks his way is the right way to "do" Christianity) – I would probably have given "Simply Christian" four stars. Unfortunately, he has at least three audience and at least three purposes, and therefore he never does a through job at any of them. A better book would have been "Simply Christian: Why denominational differences don't have to divide Christians." But if I did not _already_ believe Christianity made sense, I would not be one step closer to thinking it did after reading "Simply Christian."
This is not to say I didn't get anything out of the book. I highlighted several penetrating insights; I like what he has to say about heaven (and look forward to reading his book focused on that subject) and what he had to say about the misuse of the word "literal" when talking about the Bible. He did have one annoying habit I will pinpoint: he kept telling the reader what he was going to tell the reader later but wasn't quite ready to tell the reader yet. (We'll get to that later; but we can't address that right now; that's in chapter five…and so forth.)
Despite the book's subtitle "Why Christianity Makes Sense," Wright never really tells the reader why it does, and he often addresses the reader as though he or she has already assumed Christianity is more or less true. As an apologetic, therefore, the book is quite weak, and Wright seems to abandon this apologetic style part way through in order to switch to an introduction, finally wending his way back to the subtitle by the end of the book.
As an introduction to Christianity, however, the book is also inadequate, because it is not an organized overview and it is highly selective in what it covers; at times, the introductory portions seem also to take on a Sunday School tone.
Then Wright changes audiences and purposes yet again: he goes from apologetic for the non-Christian to and introduction for the uninformed Christian to admonishment for the practicing Christian. When he writes for this third audience, I think he is at his best. He addresses the problem of petty internal squabbles among Christians: are liturgical prayers or spontaneous prayers better? Is communion symbolic or more than symbolic? Is the Bible literal or figurative? How should we worship? Here Wright argues for a "simply Christian" attitude that would aim to transcend the differences between denominations and congregations. Here I think he makes his best points and says things Christian need to hear to understand that it is possible to differ on these issues without necessarily being divided as Christians. "It's time to give ourselves a shake," he says, "to recognize that different people need different kinds of help at different stages of their lives – and get on with it." If Wright had written this third book – this book addressed to squabbling Christians (each of whom thinks his way is the right way to "do" Christianity) – I would probably have given "Simply Christian" four stars. Unfortunately, he has at least three audience and at least three purposes, and therefore he never does a through job at any of them. A better book would have been "Simply Christian: Why denominational differences don't have to divide Christians." But if I did not _already_ believe Christianity made sense, I would not be one step closer to thinking it did after reading "Simply Christian."
This is not to say I didn't get anything out of the book. I highlighted several penetrating insights; I like what he has to say about heaven (and look forward to reading his book focused on that subject) and what he had to say about the misuse of the word "literal" when talking about the Bible. He did have one annoying habit I will pinpoint: he kept telling the reader what he was going to tell the reader later but wasn't quite ready to tell the reader yet. (We'll get to that later; but we can't address that right now; that's in chapter five…and so forth.)
September 6, 2007
I went into this a little wary, just because the book (and the author) has received a lot of hype-- Anne Rice went so far as to call it better than the C.S. Lewis classic Mere Christianity. I might not go that far, but it is a very solid, inspiring book. I hesitate to call anything so new a "classic", but I truly believe that this will be a classic, someday. One thing that I liked is the way that Wright (who is an Anglican bishop) explained the continuity (or cohesion) of the Bible. He just explained the Old Testament-New Testament connection in a different way from what I have heard before. One thing I didn't like was the way he talked around some of the main arguments in Christianity today (I see what you did, there). Like, setting out the way that Catholics and Protestants view each other's beliefs on the Eucharist, but then never actually coming down on either side. In any case, this is a book I now want to own. Highly recommended.
June 5, 2013
The main value of this book for me was probably the arresting one- to five-liners. Like these:
I had a little trouble keeping the thread throughout the book, because I read it at widely disparate times. But the idea that "heaven and earth meet" or "interlock" or "overlap" in this current age was a recurring one, and a good one. This is the already/not-yet idea put in more lay-friendly language, I think. I think what Wright says is important and, more to the point, biblical:
I could not call this book Mere Christianity for today's generation. It simply doesn't rise to that level; it's not handling objections to Christianity quite like Lewis does. (I think Keller's Reason for God makes a much better bid as Mere Christianity's heir.) And I do get tired of his above-the-fray way of speaking, his claims that his approach is "fresh" (and the implication that others unnamed are not so fresh).
But Wright is a gifted writer who has facility with and knowledge of Scripture. When it comes to one issue where you might have expected a world-renowned Anglican to hedge—human sexuality—he is extremely forthright and directly quotes the Bible at length. He has caught hold of some truths neglected by evangelicalism (and a few falsehoods rejected by evangelicalism!). For these qualities and for many little insights in the book I am thankful.
I read the book on my Kindle and therefore have no page numbers for you.
It’s no part of Christian belief to say that the followers of Jesus have always got everything right. Jesus himself taught his followers a prayer which includes a clause asking God for forgiveness. He must have thought we would go on needing it.
human beings have been so seriously damaged by evil that what they need isn’t simply better self-knowledge, or better social conditions, but help, and indeed rescue, from outside themselves
One of the regular tactics the skeptic employs at this point is relativism. I vividly remember a school friend saying to me in exasperation, at the end of a conversation about Christian faith, “It’s obviously true for you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true for anybody else.” Many people today take exactly that line. Saying “It’s true for you” sounds fine and tolerant. But it only works because it’s twisting the word “true” to mean, not “a true revelation of the way things are in the real world,” but “something that is genuinely happening inside you.” In fact, saying “It’s true for you” in this sense is more or less equivalent to saying “It’s not true for you,” because the “it” in question—the spiritual sense or awareness or experience—is conveying, very powerfully, a message (that there is a loving God) which the challenger is reducing to something else (that you are having strong feelings which you misinterpret in that sense).
Beauty, like justice, slips through our fingers. We photograph the sunset, but all we get is the memory of the moment, not the moment itself. We buy the recording, but the symphony says something different when we listen to it at home. We climb the mountain, and though the view from the summit is indeed magnificent, it leaves us wanting more; even if we could build a house there and gaze all day at the scene, the itch wouldn’t go away. Indeed, the beauty sometimes seems to be in the itching itself, the sense of longing, the kind of pleasure which is exquisite and yet leaves us unsatisfied.
The beauty of the natural world is, at best, the echo of a voice, not the voice itself. And if we try to pin it down—literally, in the case of a butterfly-collector with a specimen—we find that the key thing itself, the elusive beauty which keeps us always looking further, is precisely what you lose when the pin goes in.
A great many arguments about God—God’s existence, God’s nature, God’s actions in the world—run the risk of being like pointing a flashlight toward the sky to see if the sun is shining. It is all too easy to make the mistake of speaking and thinking as though God (if there is a God) might be a being, an entity, within our world, accessible to our interested study in the same sort of way we might study music or mathematics, open to our investigation by the same sort of techniques we use for objects and entities within our world.
I had a little trouble keeping the thread throughout the book, because I read it at widely disparate times. But the idea that "heaven and earth meet" or "interlock" or "overlap" in this current age was a recurring one, and a good one. This is the already/not-yet idea put in more lay-friendly language, I think. I think what Wright says is important and, more to the point, biblical:
God’s plan is not to abandon this world, the world which he said was “very good.” Rather, he intends to remake it. And when he does, he will raise all his people to new bodily life to live in it. That is the promise of the Christian gospel.
I could not call this book Mere Christianity for today's generation. It simply doesn't rise to that level; it's not handling objections to Christianity quite like Lewis does. (I think Keller's Reason for God makes a much better bid as Mere Christianity's heir.) And I do get tired of his above-the-fray way of speaking, his claims that his approach is "fresh" (and the implication that others unnamed are not so fresh).
But Wright is a gifted writer who has facility with and knowledge of Scripture. When it comes to one issue where you might have expected a world-renowned Anglican to hedge—human sexuality—he is extremely forthright and directly quotes the Bible at length. He has caught hold of some truths neglected by evangelicalism (and a few falsehoods rejected by evangelicalism!). For these qualities and for many little insights in the book I am thankful.
I read the book on my Kindle and therefore have no page numbers for you.
June 16, 2009
Wright has some interesting things to say about the intersection of heaven and earth - that they don't exist in separate places and times but are overlapping in various ways. And his discussions of social justice and church-building reflect obvious passion. There are a lot of sections, though, which either weakly reflect C.S. Lewis (the "echoes of a voice" section) or bring up knotty debates only to dismiss them summarily (the discussions of apocryphal gospels). The book doesn't make up its mind whether it's directed at Christians or at a wider audience, and loses focus attempting to resolve every major theological debate in one volume.
September 3, 2024
Solid book, trying to the CS Lewisesque thing of introducing Christianity to an audience that might be unfamiliar with it. Overall, does a good job of explaining Christian ethics and theology, really focuses in on the idea that Christianity is about the overlapping domains of heaven and earth, as opposed to Panthiesm which views the whole world as holy or Deism, which views heaven as being totally separate from earth. I think it lacks the charm of Mere Christianity though. Perhaps not fair to compare him to CS Lewis, but alas, that's the territory.
3.5
Quotes
One of the central elements of the Christian story is the claim that the paradox of laughter and tears, woven as it is deep into the heart of all human experience, is woven also deep into the heart of God.
Rather, the healing was a dramatic sign of the message itself. God, the world’s creator, was at work through him, to do what he had promised, to open blind eyes and deaf ears, to rescue people, to turn everything right side up. The people who had been at the bottom of the heap would find themselves, to their own great surprise, on top. “Blessed are the meek,” he said, “for they shall inherit the earth.” And he went about making it happen.
In the same way, the finest and best of our relationships will eventually end in death. The laughter will end in tears. We know it; we fear it; but there’s nothing we can do about it.
3.5
Quotes
One of the central elements of the Christian story is the claim that the paradox of laughter and tears, woven as it is deep into the heart of all human experience, is woven also deep into the heart of God.
Rather, the healing was a dramatic sign of the message itself. God, the world’s creator, was at work through him, to do what he had promised, to open blind eyes and deaf ears, to rescue people, to turn everything right side up. The people who had been at the bottom of the heap would find themselves, to their own great surprise, on top. “Blessed are the meek,” he said, “for they shall inherit the earth.” And he went about making it happen.
In the same way, the finest and best of our relationships will eventually end in death. The laughter will end in tears. We know it; we fear it; but there’s nothing we can do about it.
March 23, 2025
I love N. T. Wright’s writing… and am happy to add this to the collection! This book was fairly short and to the point of what it means to be “simply Christian,” and I gleaned so much from it. At one point while reading I remember thinking, “huh, this phrasing is kinda repetitive…”, but now that I’m finished with it I’m grateful for that because those key thoughts, ideas, and phrases are sticking with me and permeating my thoughts. There truly is so much to glean from this book, and I want to continue mulling over and meditating on the idea of our human longings for justice, spirituality, relationship, and beauty being understood as signposts (oftentimes broken signposts, but signposts all the same) toward Jesus and His Kingdom; the idea of heaven and earth now overlapping and interlocking in various times and spaces due to the resurrection of Jesus (including when we read scripture, when we pray, when we partake in communion, when we serve the poor, when we live in growing alignment with His Kingdom); and the idea of God’s future bursting into our present through those same things. If nothing else, I’m walking away with a fresh vision for the beautiful life God has called us to as His people… and it’s quite invigorating! I would definitely recommend this book.
January 23, 2020
I believe that N.T. Wright is a modern day C.S. Lewis. His work is thoughtful and eloquent. He writes with much care. This book will help Christians and non Christians understand what Christianity is all about, while being encouraging and uplifting. He doesn’t pick a side, but clearly lays out the faith as it is. A great read! I suggest it to Christians and non Christians alike!
April 30, 2011
In Simply Christian, N.T. Wright makes the case for Christianity and outlines, at a basic level, what believing in Jesus is all about. The book has been compared to Mere Christianity. There are definitely some comparisons between the two (including their titles), but I wouldn't take it too far. Mere Christianity reads as an apologetic for the foundations of Christian faith while Simply Christian reads as an entry level primer into Wright's thought.
Overall, I got quite a bit less out of this one than I have Wright's other work. Many of the themes and ideas he lays out in brief here, he develops in detail elsewhere. Because I've read quite a bit of his other work, there wasn't a lot here that was new or surprising.
That doesn't mean I don't recommend the book. I do, especially to those who haven't read Wright. The book is a great introduction to his theology and will give you a great foundation for exploring his other work. If this was the first book of his I'd read, I probably would have been blown away. Coming at it the way I did, I found the book well written and interesting but not as hard hitting as it would have been if I wasn't already familiar with much of the content.
Overall, I got quite a bit less out of this one than I have Wright's other work. Many of the themes and ideas he lays out in brief here, he develops in detail elsewhere. Because I've read quite a bit of his other work, there wasn't a lot here that was new or surprising.
That doesn't mean I don't recommend the book. I do, especially to those who haven't read Wright. The book is a great introduction to his theology and will give you a great foundation for exploring his other work. If this was the first book of his I'd read, I probably would have been blown away. Coming at it the way I did, I found the book well written and interesting but not as hard hitting as it would have been if I wasn't already familiar with much of the content.
January 31, 2020
4.5
This is a brilliant book and I loved it!
The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars was because at some points, it left me craving to hear more and go into more detail. I understand that this is not the point of the book as the title "Simple" suggests, but I wouldn't mind 50 more pages.
P.S. Also, I recommend that you read Simply Jesus right after reading this or vice versa.
This is a brilliant book and I loved it!
The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars was because at some points, it left me craving to hear more and go into more detail. I understand that this is not the point of the book as the title "Simple" suggests, but I wouldn't mind 50 more pages.
P.S. Also, I recommend that you read Simply Jesus right after reading this or vice versa.
October 11, 2019
It took me some time to finish this book. The ideas presented in this book with stretch you and make you think about how your faith as a Christian fits into everyday life. Recommend fer sure!
January 9, 2023
Took me forever and a day to read this and I found that I had to constantly reread paragraphs right after I’d read them. However, there were both poetic and profound nuggets throughout the book and I appreciate the structure N.T. Wright was able to give to the daunting task of explaining what it means to be Christian.
May 11, 2020
4.5/5
June 12, 2019
This should be a required read for all non-reformed Christians. Nothing better explains the Christian narrative than this masterpiece.
October 5, 2024
Stabil genomgång av vad kristen tro egentligen handlar om. Kunde skrivits på något färre sidor. Men men. Förmodligen toppen för den som är ny i tron eller som känner att man är lite osäker på exakt vad det är vi tror, kring alla möjliga områden som rör Gud och människan.
September 9, 2019
N.T. Wright has generated some controversy over the last several years. That's putting it mildly. His views concerning the so-called new perspective on Paul have drawn the attention and criticism of well known authors like John Piper. But his book Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense jettisons that whole debate. I found the book to be thought-provoking and helpful on many levels.
Wright explores what he calls the "echoes of a voice," a yearning for justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty. Each one of these quests, while basic to the human condition eludes us and appears to be just beyond our grasp, yet each will be attainable one day as Christ makes all things new. This is the essence of Part One. He takes each theme and likens them to the "opening movements of a symphony" which alert readers to echoes that are still to come.
Part Two seeks to set forth the basic theological framework about God and the revelation of his Son, Jesus Christ and his plan to rescue sinners from their sin and renew or reshape creation. Wright explores themes the relate to the kingdom of Christ and living by the Spirit.
Part Three explores what it means to follow Jesus, lean into the Holy Spirit and ultimately "advance the plan of this creator God." Wright dispels the notion that the main purpose of the Christian faith is to live, die, and then go to heaven. Rather, we are called to be "instruments of God's new creation, the world-put-to-rights which has already been launched in Jesus and of which Jesus's followers are supposed to be not simply beneficiaries but also agents."
One of the things I appreciate most about Wright's work is his interaction with other worldviews. In Schaeffer-like fashion, he contrasts historic Christianity with deism, pantheism, and panentheism - to name a few. He sorts through various options and shows how the Christian faith is the only viable option. In many ways, Simply Christian is an introduction to biblical theology with strong apologetic arguments along the way. In other ways, it is an introduction to spiritual formation - alerting readers to the riches found in Christ and the power of his resurrection and beckoning them to find their satisfaction in Christ.
The author concludes by challenging readers: "We are called to be part of God's new creation, called to be agents of that new creation here and now. We are called to model and display that new creation in symphonies and family life, in restorative justice and poetry, in holiness and service to the poor, in politics and painting ... Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, as agents, heralds, and stewards of the new day that is dawning." This is a book that deserves careful attention. Like a child who longs to explore the countryside, I plan to return for another visit. For there is more to explore and understand.
Wright explores what he calls the "echoes of a voice," a yearning for justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty. Each one of these quests, while basic to the human condition eludes us and appears to be just beyond our grasp, yet each will be attainable one day as Christ makes all things new. This is the essence of Part One. He takes each theme and likens them to the "opening movements of a symphony" which alert readers to echoes that are still to come.
Part Two seeks to set forth the basic theological framework about God and the revelation of his Son, Jesus Christ and his plan to rescue sinners from their sin and renew or reshape creation. Wright explores themes the relate to the kingdom of Christ and living by the Spirit.
Part Three explores what it means to follow Jesus, lean into the Holy Spirit and ultimately "advance the plan of this creator God." Wright dispels the notion that the main purpose of the Christian faith is to live, die, and then go to heaven. Rather, we are called to be "instruments of God's new creation, the world-put-to-rights which has already been launched in Jesus and of which Jesus's followers are supposed to be not simply beneficiaries but also agents."
One of the things I appreciate most about Wright's work is his interaction with other worldviews. In Schaeffer-like fashion, he contrasts historic Christianity with deism, pantheism, and panentheism - to name a few. He sorts through various options and shows how the Christian faith is the only viable option. In many ways, Simply Christian is an introduction to biblical theology with strong apologetic arguments along the way. In other ways, it is an introduction to spiritual formation - alerting readers to the riches found in Christ and the power of his resurrection and beckoning them to find their satisfaction in Christ.
The author concludes by challenging readers: "We are called to be part of God's new creation, called to be agents of that new creation here and now. We are called to model and display that new creation in symphonies and family life, in restorative justice and poetry, in holiness and service to the poor, in politics and painting ... Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, as agents, heralds, and stewards of the new day that is dawning." This is a book that deserves careful attention. Like a child who longs to explore the countryside, I plan to return for another visit. For there is more to explore and understand.
June 16, 2013
At a different time in my life, I may have rated this book higher. I'm being generous in my rating by giving it three stars through acknowledgement that my reading of this comes at a bad time. For starters, I chose the audiobook read by Simon Prebble, who has a voice and accent not too different from Ralph Cosham. The latter narrated C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and it was difficult because of the voice and to some extent, the content, to tell one book from the other. Wright takes the same thoughtful, apologetic approach as Lewis, gives it a similar title, and comes up with similar conclusions.
Bad timing number two is that it follows a six-book introduction to a more progressive Christianity through Rob Bell and Marcus Borg. Rob Bell has recommended works of N.T. Wright in his footnotes, and Borg is a personal friend and has co-authored with Wright. I was very surprised then to read how conservative Wright is. To be clear, he's far from a fundamentalist or a complete literalist, but his thoughts in many areas, including Paul's writings as well as social issues, fall closer to that camp.
When he does give good insight in a more liberal direction (such as the importance of metaphor and truth being possibly similar, and to the point of resurrection and salvation being more for a richer life right now, rather than waiting until this life is over), he fails to be anywhere near as scholarly as Borg nor as charismatic and persuasive as Bell. Like I said, it's bad timing on my part. Perhaps if I'd read this first, it would have been something I'd have appreciated more.
In the end, I can think of only two profiles of reader to whom I'd recommend this book, and that is to the Christian who has spent time in the fundamentalist or other conservative camp who is interested in a slightly more liberal take. The other is to the progressive Christian who feels too far removed from tradition and is looking for a more moderate approach.
Bad timing number two is that it follows a six-book introduction to a more progressive Christianity through Rob Bell and Marcus Borg. Rob Bell has recommended works of N.T. Wright in his footnotes, and Borg is a personal friend and has co-authored with Wright. I was very surprised then to read how conservative Wright is. To be clear, he's far from a fundamentalist or a complete literalist, but his thoughts in many areas, including Paul's writings as well as social issues, fall closer to that camp.
When he does give good insight in a more liberal direction (such as the importance of metaphor and truth being possibly similar, and to the point of resurrection and salvation being more for a richer life right now, rather than waiting until this life is over), he fails to be anywhere near as scholarly as Borg nor as charismatic and persuasive as Bell. Like I said, it's bad timing on my part. Perhaps if I'd read this first, it would have been something I'd have appreciated more.
In the end, I can think of only two profiles of reader to whom I'd recommend this book, and that is to the Christian who has spent time in the fundamentalist or other conservative camp who is interested in a slightly more liberal take. The other is to the progressive Christian who feels too far removed from tradition and is looking for a more moderate approach.
January 23, 2008
Simple, yet far from simplistic, this may be one of the most important books I've read. Tom Wright set forth the key issues of the Gospel in a way that's easily accessible to both studied Christians and people who just want to know what Christianity is actually all about. Many political and theological issues have become hot-button topics and seem to be litmus tests among different Christian communities for how good of a Christian someone is, and unfortunately many of those are actually fringe issues. Instead of reacting to those, Wright describes the truly central issues of our faith in a balanced, thoughtful, and convincing way.
He starts with four very compelling chapters to get at questions and longings that resonate deeply for most (if not all) of us in the post-modern world of the 21st century. Then he proceeds to connect the story of the Bible to those questions and desires, and sketch out the responses of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
I found this book quite readable, yet deeply challenging and thought-provoking.
He starts with four very compelling chapters to get at questions and longings that resonate deeply for most (if not all) of us in the post-modern world of the 21st century. Then he proceeds to connect the story of the Bible to those questions and desires, and sketch out the responses of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
I found this book quite readable, yet deeply challenging and thought-provoking.
January 22, 2015
This seems like kind of a basic book for a professional Christian (so to speak) to read, but I was curious. It's a kind of 21st-century "Mere Christianity" with less apologia and more ecclesia. What I like about Wright's approach is that he stresses the "renewal of creation" salvation theory more than the "atonement for sin" theory. And, speaking of sin, I am frankly quite envious of how many books this man has written. And, speaking of C. S. Lewis knock-offs, I see that a year ago Wright published a book called "Surprised by Hope." Maybe some day I will write a book called "Surprised by Faith" and it will be sold in a multi-volume set with books by Lewis and Wright.
February 9, 2017
Like most of Wright's material, Simply Christian is brilliant, yet missing much in seemingly key places. It seemed as if Wright was unsure of whether he was writing to a skeptic or a polemic against popular evangelicalism. But, for every one of those lesser moments, Wright brilliantly leads the reader to an understanding or insight not found in today's interpreters. As always, I am glad to have heard Wright's insight. The last two chapters are worth the price of admission.
March 10, 2021
I don't know who Wright's intended audience was. I assumed it was making an argument for those who don't think Christianity makes sense (a group in which I would count myself) about how Christianity does, in fact, make sense. But he seemed most of the time to be using poetic metaphorical language to describe things ("In Jesus, heaven and earth meet" -- what does this even MEAN?) that it sounded like he was preaching to the choir.
April 14, 2018
A great explanation and reminder of why we do what we do as Christians. Beautifully written. He writes so charitably to Christianity as a whole, giving no sense of condemnation towards different denominations or preferences within the church, while maintaining a foundational orthodoxy and dedication to the truth of scripture and the importance of church.
February 12, 2018
The title is a bit misleading. I don't think this book is about why Christianity makes sense (a claim that naturally implies that other religions don't make sense), as much as it is about what it means to be a Christian. However, I can see how the title would appeal to the skeptic, or to the wavering Christian or even to the outright doubter/atheist/agnostic. Yet N.T. Wright convincingly articulates (though more convincing to those already predisposed to ideas of Christian faith) what it means to live a Christian life.
I. Putting the World to Rights
Modern (Jordan B. Peterson) and ancient (Aristotle) philosophers point to a line that runs through the heart of every person. As Wright puts it, "The line between justice and injustice, between things being right and things not being right, can't be drawn between 'us' and 'them'. It runs right down through the middle of each one of us. The ancient philosophers, not least Aristotle, saw this as a wrinkle in the system, a puzzle at several levels. We all know what we ought to do (give or take a few details); but we all manage, at least some of the time, not to do it." We all know this, whether we are Christian by name, or not. But an important part of the Christian faith is the fact that it "endorses the passion for justice which every human being knows, the longing to see things put to rights." Christianity, in other words, provides a real and honest route to restoring justice in the world.
II. The Hidden Spring
Many people will say they don't mind religious or spiritual people as long as those people keep their religion and spirituality to themselves. Ironically, those same people often have deeply religious or spiritual experiences, but might be too afraid or ashamed to admit it. There is clearly a desire among the religious and non-religious alike to understand the deep sense of spirit that runs through each of us. It can be called different names and explained in different ways through various philosophies of thought and modes of language, but its existence can't be denied. Yet, in many ways the world denies it all the time.
For example, Wright argues that, "[t]he skepticism that we've been taught for the last two hundred years has paved our world with concrete, making people ashamed to admit that they have had profound and powerful 'religious' experiences." The prevailing philosophy today says, "[w]e will pipe you the water you need; we will arrange for 'religion' to become a small subdepartment of ordinary life; it will be quite safe--harmless in fact--with church carefully separated off from everything else in the world, whether politics, art, sex, economics, or whatever. Those who want it can have enough to keep them going. Those who don't want their life, and their way of life, disrupted by anything 'religious' can enjoy driving along concrete roads, visiting concrete-based shopping malls, living in concrete-floored houses. Live as if the rumor of God had never existed! We are, after all, in charge of our own fate! We are the captains of our own souls (whatever they may be)! That is the philosophy which has dominated our culture. From this point of view, spirituality is a private hobby, an up-market version of daydreaming for those who like that kind of thing."
Wright goes on to write, "Millions in the Western world have enjoyed the temporary separation from 'religious' interference that this philosophy has brought. Millions more, aware of the deep subterranean bubblings and yearnings of the water systems we call 'spirituality', which can no more ultimately be denied than can endless springs of water under thick concrete, have done their best secretly to tap into it, using the official channels (the churches), but aware that there's more water available than most churches have let on. Many more again have been aware of an indefinable thirst, a longing for springs of living, refreshing water that they can bathe in, delight in, and drink to the full."
As a result, the "hidden springs have erupted, the concrete foundation has burst open, and life can never be the same again. The official guardians of the old water system (many of whom work in the media and in politics, and some of whom, naturally enough, work in the churches) are of course horrified to see the volcano of 'spirituality' that has erupted in recent years. All this 'New Age' mysticism, with Tarot cards, crystals, horoscopes, and so on; all this fundamentalism, with militant Christians, militant Sikhs, militant Muslims, and many others bombing each other with God on their side. Surely, say the guardians of the official water system, all this is terribly unhealthy? Surely it will lead us back to superstition, to the old chaotic, polluted, and irrational water supply?
They have a point. But they must face a question in response: Does the fault not lie with those who wanted to pave over the springs with concrete in the first place? September 11, 2001, serves as a reminder of what happens when you try to organize a world on the assumption that religion and spirituality are merely private matters, and that what really matters is economics and politics instead. It wasn't just concrete floors, it was massive towers that were smashed to pieces that day, by people driven by 'religious' beliefs so powerful that the believers were ready to die for them. What should we say? That this merely shows how dangerous 'religion' and 'spirituality' really are? Or that we should have taken them into account all along?"
I partly agree with Wright. Especially in the sense that he refutes the lazy, trite, and theologically ignorant atheist/agnostic argument which claims that 9/11 symbolizes the extreme consequences of embracing religious ideology, and therefore no one should be Christian or Muslim because doing so leads to such disasters. This is a shallow understanding of what it means to be Christian.
But then you have to ask, what does Wright mean by "taking them into account all along"? Does that mean George W. Bush should have given equal respect and credence to Islam in his national speeches? Or should he have omitted all the Christian references, thus indicating no preference for any religion in the American tradition.
III. For the Beauty of the Earth
In Psalm 19, David says that when you look at the universe it is obvious that there is a God: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim they work of his hands'.
What is beauty and what is truth? And are they the same? As Keats wrote, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty." But this is really a facile equation because, as Wright notes, "If beauty and truth are one and the same, then truth is different for everyone, for every age, and indeed for the same person from year to year. If beauty were hidden in the beholder's eye, then 'truth' would be merely a way of talking about the inner feelings that went along with it. And that simply isn't how we normally use the word 'truth'.
Beauty and truth are two powerful words that are associated with all sorts of equally powerful emotions. We know what someone means when they say something is beautiful or that it has beauty, so much so that it would seem ridiculous to have them explain it any further. Beauty, "whether in the natural order or within human creation, is sometimes so powerful that it evokes our very deepest feelings of awe, wonder, gratitude, and reverence. Almost all humans sense this some of the time at least, even though they disagree wildly about which things evoke which feelings and why."
Some argue that beauty is all in the mind, or the imagination, or the genes. It's all a matter of evolutionary conditioning: you only like that particular scenery because your distant ancestors knew they could find food there. Still others "might quite reasonably suggest that it's all about vicarious pleasure: we would like to be among the guests at the dinner party in the painting. It seems we have to hold the two together: beauty is both something that calls us out of ourselves and something which appeals to feelings deep within us."
I recently listened to a podcast entitled "What is Truth?", a debate between the outspoken atheist Sam Harris and the renowned psychologist/professor/philosopher Jordan B. Peterson. Their fundamental disagreements over the nature of 'truth' were apparent from the beginning. Wright touches on these differences in our understanding of truth: "On the one hand, some (Harris) want to reduce all truth to 'facts', things which can be proved in the way you can prove that oil is lighter than water, or even that two and two make four. On the other hand, some believe that all truth is relative, and that all claims to truth are merely coded claims to power."
But Wright admonishes us that the Christian story addresses a complex world. Within that complexity, we should be careful how we use the word 'truth'.
Christianity focuses on a deeper kind of knowing. "To 'know' the deeper kinds of truth we have hinting at is much more like 'knowing' a person - something which takes a long time, a lot of trust, and a good deal of trial and error - and less like 'knowing' about the right bus to take into town. It's a kind of knowing in which the subject and the object are intertwined, so that you could never say that it was either purely subjective or purely objective."
A word emphasized in the Christian faith acknowledges the kind of knowing that goes with the deeper and richer kind of truth: that word is "love".
IV. Heaven and Earth: The Puzzle
Wright argues that there are three basic ways (with variations) in which we can imagine God's space and ours relating to one another.
Option One is two slide the two spaces together. God's space and ours, in this option, are basically the same. God is everywhere and everywhere is God. Or, God is everything, and everything is God. This option is called "pantheism". It was popular in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds of the first century, primarily through the philosophy of 'Stoicism', and after centuries in decline it has become increasingly popular in our own times.
The problem with pantheism, and to a large extent with panentheism (the view that, though everything may not be divine as such, everything that exists is 'within' God), is that it can't cope with evil. The only final answer (given by Stoics in the first century, and by increasing numbers in today's Western world) is suicide.
Option Two is to completely separate the two spaces. "God's space and ours are a long way away from one another in this option." This is the Epicurean philosophy in which the gods will not intervene, either to help or to harm. Separating God's sphere and ours in the Epicurean fashion, with a distant God whom you might respect but who wasn't going to appear or do anything within our sphere, became very popular in the Western world of the eighteenth century (through the movement known as "Deism", espoused by great American figures like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin). When many people in the Western world mention "God" and "heaven", they're talking about a being and a place which - if they exist at all - are a long way away and have little or nothing directly to do with us." This philosophy explains why many people say they believe in God, but often add in the same breath that they don't go to church, don't pray, and in fact they don't think much about God from one year's end to the next.
According to Wright, "the real problem with Epicureanism in the ancient world, and Deism in ours, is that it has to plug its ears to all those echoing voices we were talking about earlier in this book. Actually, that's not so difficult in today's busy and noisy world. It's quite easy, in fact, when you're sitting in front of the television or hooked up to a portable stereo, one hand glued to the cell phone for text messaging, the other clutching a mug of specialist coffee ... it's quite easy to be a modern Epicurean. But turn the machines off, read a different kind of book, wander out under the night sky, and see what happens. You might start wondering about Option Three."
Option Three is found within classic Judaism and Christianity. "Heaven and earth are not coterminous in this option. Nor are they separated by a great gulf. Instead, they overlap and interlock in a number of different ways." This is the most complex option, and it most fittingly embraces the complexity of the world.
"For the pantheist, God and the world are basically the same thing: the world is, if you like, God's self-expression. For the Deist, the world may indeed have been made by God (or the gods), but there is now no contact between divine and human. The Deist God wouldn't dream of 'intervening' within the created order; to do so would be untidy, a kind of category mistake. But for the ancient Israelite and the early Christian, the creation of the world was the free outpouring of God's powerful love.
In this third option, "The one true God made a world that was other than himself, because that is what love delights to do. And, having made such a world, he has remained in a close, dynamic, and intimate relationship with it, without in any way being contained within it or having it contained within himself."
This claim is hard to swallow unless you already have faith in God as the creator. And it's interesting to note that Wright barely mentions the word 'faith' at all in this book. For the skeptic or wavering Christian, this anthropomorphic view of God is difficult to grasp. And for the rationalist atheist it is easy to attack.
But as Terry Eagleton notes, "God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects."
V. Jesus: Rescue and Renewal
The most striking and blunt passage in this entire chapter if not the entire book comes here:
"The death of Jesus of Nazareth as the king of the Jews, the bearer of Israel's destiny, the fulfillment of God's promises to his people of old, is either the most stupid, senseless waste and misunderstanding the world has ever seen, or it is the fulcrum around which world history turns. Christianity is based on the belief that it was and is the latter."
Many people, Christians and non-believers alike, acknowledge an affinity toward Jesus the man. He taught many valuable moral lessons through parable and metaphor. The historical record of Jesus, while once in dispute, is now hardly denied. But what the death of Jesus the man symbolizes is what separates Christians from deists, pantheists, atheists, and agnostics.
Wright goes on to make a keen observation of a difference in science and history:
"Science, after all, rightly studies phenoma which can be repeated in laboratory conditions. But history doesn't. Historians study things that happened once and once only; even if there are partial parallels, each historical event is unique. And the historical argument is quite clear. To repeat: far and away the best explanation for why Christianity began after Jesus's violent death is that he really was bodily alive again three days later, in a transformed body." He doesn't suggest that this (or any other argument) can "force anyone to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead." The trouble is that "believing that Jesus was raised from the dead involves, at the very least, suspending judgment on matters normally regarded as fixed and unalterable; or to put it more positively, it requires that we exchange a worldview which says that such things can't happen for one which, embracing the notion or a creator God making himself known initially in the traditions of Israel and then fully and finally in Jesus, says that Jesus's resurrection makes perfect sense when seen from that point of view. Faith can't be force, but unfaith can be challenged."
He further highlights parallels to this phenomenon in the world of contemporary science. "Scientists now regularly ask us to believe things which seem strange and even illogical, not least in the areas of astrophysics or quantum mechanics. With something as basic as light, for example, they find themselves driven to speak in terms both of waves and of particles, though these appear incompatible. Sometimes, to make sense of the actual evidence before us, we have to pull our worldview, our sense of what's possible, into a new shape. That is the kind of thing demanded by the evidence about Easter."
All of these arguments play out at the "borders of language as well as theology."
VI. God's Breath of Life
One difficult aspect of embracing Wright's argument is that it requires us to relinquish our concept of time and space. Indeed, accepting the Christian faith requires this in some sense. Take this passage, for example:
"One day all creation will be rescued from slavery, from the corruption, decay, and death which deface its beauty, destroy its relationships, remove the sense of God's presence from it, and make it a place of injustice, violence, and brutality." This leads to the question, what does it mean to say that his future has begun to arrive in the present? According to Wright, this means (in Paul's words) "that those who follow Jesus, those who find themselves believing that he is the world's true Lord, that he rose from the dead - these people are given the Spirit as a foretaste of what the new world will be like." The Spirit is "the strange, personal presence of the living God himself, leading, guiding, warning, rebuking, grieving over our failings, and celebrating our small steps toward the true inheritance."
VII. The Story and the Task
Non-believers frequently attack faith based on literal interpretations of religious texts. Texts written by men and shaped over centuries. "Not all 'holy books' are the same sort of thing. The great writings of the Hindu tradition - the Bhagavad Gita, in particular - do not offer a controlling story within which the readers are summoned to become characters. They do not speak of a single god who, as the unique creator, chooses to act in one specific family and location rather than all others in order thereby to address the whole world. This affects form as well as content. The Koran, the majestic monument to Muhammad, is a different sort of thing again, much more like (in fact) the kind of hard-edged 'authoritative' book which some would consider the Bible to be - or perhaps we should say into which they would like to turn the Bible. Even Judaism, whose Bible the church has made its own, doesn't tell a continuing story of the Christian sort, a story in which the readers are summoned to become fresh characters."
What the Christian believes about Jesus "generates a narrative within which one is called to live; that living within that story generates a call to a particular vocation within the world; and that the Bible is the book through which God sustains and directs those who seek to obey that vocation as intelligent, thinking, image-bearing human beings. The Bible constantly challenges its readers not to rest content."
Finally, Wright circle back to the meaning of truth. "The parables of the Bible are 'true' at several different levels; and to recognize this is not a way of saying, 'The only real 'truths' that matter are the 'spiritual' meanings, the things that didn't 'happen' as events in the real world. Truth is more complicated - more interesting, in fact - than that."
Indeed, it is.
I. Putting the World to Rights
Modern (Jordan B. Peterson) and ancient (Aristotle) philosophers point to a line that runs through the heart of every person. As Wright puts it, "The line between justice and injustice, between things being right and things not being right, can't be drawn between 'us' and 'them'. It runs right down through the middle of each one of us. The ancient philosophers, not least Aristotle, saw this as a wrinkle in the system, a puzzle at several levels. We all know what we ought to do (give or take a few details); but we all manage, at least some of the time, not to do it." We all know this, whether we are Christian by name, or not. But an important part of the Christian faith is the fact that it "endorses the passion for justice which every human being knows, the longing to see things put to rights." Christianity, in other words, provides a real and honest route to restoring justice in the world.
II. The Hidden Spring
Many people will say they don't mind religious or spiritual people as long as those people keep their religion and spirituality to themselves. Ironically, those same people often have deeply religious or spiritual experiences, but might be too afraid or ashamed to admit it. There is clearly a desire among the religious and non-religious alike to understand the deep sense of spirit that runs through each of us. It can be called different names and explained in different ways through various philosophies of thought and modes of language, but its existence can't be denied. Yet, in many ways the world denies it all the time.
For example, Wright argues that, "[t]he skepticism that we've been taught for the last two hundred years has paved our world with concrete, making people ashamed to admit that they have had profound and powerful 'religious' experiences." The prevailing philosophy today says, "[w]e will pipe you the water you need; we will arrange for 'religion' to become a small subdepartment of ordinary life; it will be quite safe--harmless in fact--with church carefully separated off from everything else in the world, whether politics, art, sex, economics, or whatever. Those who want it can have enough to keep them going. Those who don't want their life, and their way of life, disrupted by anything 'religious' can enjoy driving along concrete roads, visiting concrete-based shopping malls, living in concrete-floored houses. Live as if the rumor of God had never existed! We are, after all, in charge of our own fate! We are the captains of our own souls (whatever they may be)! That is the philosophy which has dominated our culture. From this point of view, spirituality is a private hobby, an up-market version of daydreaming for those who like that kind of thing."
Wright goes on to write, "Millions in the Western world have enjoyed the temporary separation from 'religious' interference that this philosophy has brought. Millions more, aware of the deep subterranean bubblings and yearnings of the water systems we call 'spirituality', which can no more ultimately be denied than can endless springs of water under thick concrete, have done their best secretly to tap into it, using the official channels (the churches), but aware that there's more water available than most churches have let on. Many more again have been aware of an indefinable thirst, a longing for springs of living, refreshing water that they can bathe in, delight in, and drink to the full."
As a result, the "hidden springs have erupted, the concrete foundation has burst open, and life can never be the same again. The official guardians of the old water system (many of whom work in the media and in politics, and some of whom, naturally enough, work in the churches) are of course horrified to see the volcano of 'spirituality' that has erupted in recent years. All this 'New Age' mysticism, with Tarot cards, crystals, horoscopes, and so on; all this fundamentalism, with militant Christians, militant Sikhs, militant Muslims, and many others bombing each other with God on their side. Surely, say the guardians of the official water system, all this is terribly unhealthy? Surely it will lead us back to superstition, to the old chaotic, polluted, and irrational water supply?
They have a point. But they must face a question in response: Does the fault not lie with those who wanted to pave over the springs with concrete in the first place? September 11, 2001, serves as a reminder of what happens when you try to organize a world on the assumption that religion and spirituality are merely private matters, and that what really matters is economics and politics instead. It wasn't just concrete floors, it was massive towers that were smashed to pieces that day, by people driven by 'religious' beliefs so powerful that the believers were ready to die for them. What should we say? That this merely shows how dangerous 'religion' and 'spirituality' really are? Or that we should have taken them into account all along?"
I partly agree with Wright. Especially in the sense that he refutes the lazy, trite, and theologically ignorant atheist/agnostic argument which claims that 9/11 symbolizes the extreme consequences of embracing religious ideology, and therefore no one should be Christian or Muslim because doing so leads to such disasters. This is a shallow understanding of what it means to be Christian.
But then you have to ask, what does Wright mean by "taking them into account all along"? Does that mean George W. Bush should have given equal respect and credence to Islam in his national speeches? Or should he have omitted all the Christian references, thus indicating no preference for any religion in the American tradition.
III. For the Beauty of the Earth
In Psalm 19, David says that when you look at the universe it is obvious that there is a God: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim they work of his hands'.
What is beauty and what is truth? And are they the same? As Keats wrote, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty." But this is really a facile equation because, as Wright notes, "If beauty and truth are one and the same, then truth is different for everyone, for every age, and indeed for the same person from year to year. If beauty were hidden in the beholder's eye, then 'truth' would be merely a way of talking about the inner feelings that went along with it. And that simply isn't how we normally use the word 'truth'.
Beauty and truth are two powerful words that are associated with all sorts of equally powerful emotions. We know what someone means when they say something is beautiful or that it has beauty, so much so that it would seem ridiculous to have them explain it any further. Beauty, "whether in the natural order or within human creation, is sometimes so powerful that it evokes our very deepest feelings of awe, wonder, gratitude, and reverence. Almost all humans sense this some of the time at least, even though they disagree wildly about which things evoke which feelings and why."
Some argue that beauty is all in the mind, or the imagination, or the genes. It's all a matter of evolutionary conditioning: you only like that particular scenery because your distant ancestors knew they could find food there. Still others "might quite reasonably suggest that it's all about vicarious pleasure: we would like to be among the guests at the dinner party in the painting. It seems we have to hold the two together: beauty is both something that calls us out of ourselves and something which appeals to feelings deep within us."
I recently listened to a podcast entitled "What is Truth?", a debate between the outspoken atheist Sam Harris and the renowned psychologist/professor/philosopher Jordan B. Peterson. Their fundamental disagreements over the nature of 'truth' were apparent from the beginning. Wright touches on these differences in our understanding of truth: "On the one hand, some (Harris) want to reduce all truth to 'facts', things which can be proved in the way you can prove that oil is lighter than water, or even that two and two make four. On the other hand, some believe that all truth is relative, and that all claims to truth are merely coded claims to power."
But Wright admonishes us that the Christian story addresses a complex world. Within that complexity, we should be careful how we use the word 'truth'.
Christianity focuses on a deeper kind of knowing. "To 'know' the deeper kinds of truth we have hinting at is much more like 'knowing' a person - something which takes a long time, a lot of trust, and a good deal of trial and error - and less like 'knowing' about the right bus to take into town. It's a kind of knowing in which the subject and the object are intertwined, so that you could never say that it was either purely subjective or purely objective."
A word emphasized in the Christian faith acknowledges the kind of knowing that goes with the deeper and richer kind of truth: that word is "love".
IV. Heaven and Earth: The Puzzle
Wright argues that there are three basic ways (with variations) in which we can imagine God's space and ours relating to one another.
Option One is two slide the two spaces together. God's space and ours, in this option, are basically the same. God is everywhere and everywhere is God. Or, God is everything, and everything is God. This option is called "pantheism". It was popular in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds of the first century, primarily through the philosophy of 'Stoicism', and after centuries in decline it has become increasingly popular in our own times.
The problem with pantheism, and to a large extent with panentheism (the view that, though everything may not be divine as such, everything that exists is 'within' God), is that it can't cope with evil. The only final answer (given by Stoics in the first century, and by increasing numbers in today's Western world) is suicide.
Option Two is to completely separate the two spaces. "God's space and ours are a long way away from one another in this option." This is the Epicurean philosophy in which the gods will not intervene, either to help or to harm. Separating God's sphere and ours in the Epicurean fashion, with a distant God whom you might respect but who wasn't going to appear or do anything within our sphere, became very popular in the Western world of the eighteenth century (through the movement known as "Deism", espoused by great American figures like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin). When many people in the Western world mention "God" and "heaven", they're talking about a being and a place which - if they exist at all - are a long way away and have little or nothing directly to do with us." This philosophy explains why many people say they believe in God, but often add in the same breath that they don't go to church, don't pray, and in fact they don't think much about God from one year's end to the next.
According to Wright, "the real problem with Epicureanism in the ancient world, and Deism in ours, is that it has to plug its ears to all those echoing voices we were talking about earlier in this book. Actually, that's not so difficult in today's busy and noisy world. It's quite easy, in fact, when you're sitting in front of the television or hooked up to a portable stereo, one hand glued to the cell phone for text messaging, the other clutching a mug of specialist coffee ... it's quite easy to be a modern Epicurean. But turn the machines off, read a different kind of book, wander out under the night sky, and see what happens. You might start wondering about Option Three."
Option Three is found within classic Judaism and Christianity. "Heaven and earth are not coterminous in this option. Nor are they separated by a great gulf. Instead, they overlap and interlock in a number of different ways." This is the most complex option, and it most fittingly embraces the complexity of the world.
"For the pantheist, God and the world are basically the same thing: the world is, if you like, God's self-expression. For the Deist, the world may indeed have been made by God (or the gods), but there is now no contact between divine and human. The Deist God wouldn't dream of 'intervening' within the created order; to do so would be untidy, a kind of category mistake. But for the ancient Israelite and the early Christian, the creation of the world was the free outpouring of God's powerful love.
In this third option, "The one true God made a world that was other than himself, because that is what love delights to do. And, having made such a world, he has remained in a close, dynamic, and intimate relationship with it, without in any way being contained within it or having it contained within himself."
This claim is hard to swallow unless you already have faith in God as the creator. And it's interesting to note that Wright barely mentions the word 'faith' at all in this book. For the skeptic or wavering Christian, this anthropomorphic view of God is difficult to grasp. And for the rationalist atheist it is easy to attack.
But as Terry Eagleton notes, "God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects."
V. Jesus: Rescue and Renewal
The most striking and blunt passage in this entire chapter if not the entire book comes here:
"The death of Jesus of Nazareth as the king of the Jews, the bearer of Israel's destiny, the fulfillment of God's promises to his people of old, is either the most stupid, senseless waste and misunderstanding the world has ever seen, or it is the fulcrum around which world history turns. Christianity is based on the belief that it was and is the latter."
Many people, Christians and non-believers alike, acknowledge an affinity toward Jesus the man. He taught many valuable moral lessons through parable and metaphor. The historical record of Jesus, while once in dispute, is now hardly denied. But what the death of Jesus the man symbolizes is what separates Christians from deists, pantheists, atheists, and agnostics.
Wright goes on to make a keen observation of a difference in science and history:
"Science, after all, rightly studies phenoma which can be repeated in laboratory conditions. But history doesn't. Historians study things that happened once and once only; even if there are partial parallels, each historical event is unique. And the historical argument is quite clear. To repeat: far and away the best explanation for why Christianity began after Jesus's violent death is that he really was bodily alive again three days later, in a transformed body." He doesn't suggest that this (or any other argument) can "force anyone to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead." The trouble is that "believing that Jesus was raised from the dead involves, at the very least, suspending judgment on matters normally regarded as fixed and unalterable; or to put it more positively, it requires that we exchange a worldview which says that such things can't happen for one which, embracing the notion or a creator God making himself known initially in the traditions of Israel and then fully and finally in Jesus, says that Jesus's resurrection makes perfect sense when seen from that point of view. Faith can't be force, but unfaith can be challenged."
He further highlights parallels to this phenomenon in the world of contemporary science. "Scientists now regularly ask us to believe things which seem strange and even illogical, not least in the areas of astrophysics or quantum mechanics. With something as basic as light, for example, they find themselves driven to speak in terms both of waves and of particles, though these appear incompatible. Sometimes, to make sense of the actual evidence before us, we have to pull our worldview, our sense of what's possible, into a new shape. That is the kind of thing demanded by the evidence about Easter."
All of these arguments play out at the "borders of language as well as theology."
VI. God's Breath of Life
One difficult aspect of embracing Wright's argument is that it requires us to relinquish our concept of time and space. Indeed, accepting the Christian faith requires this in some sense. Take this passage, for example:
"One day all creation will be rescued from slavery, from the corruption, decay, and death which deface its beauty, destroy its relationships, remove the sense of God's presence from it, and make it a place of injustice, violence, and brutality." This leads to the question, what does it mean to say that his future has begun to arrive in the present? According to Wright, this means (in Paul's words) "that those who follow Jesus, those who find themselves believing that he is the world's true Lord, that he rose from the dead - these people are given the Spirit as a foretaste of what the new world will be like." The Spirit is "the strange, personal presence of the living God himself, leading, guiding, warning, rebuking, grieving over our failings, and celebrating our small steps toward the true inheritance."
VII. The Story and the Task
Non-believers frequently attack faith based on literal interpretations of religious texts. Texts written by men and shaped over centuries. "Not all 'holy books' are the same sort of thing. The great writings of the Hindu tradition - the Bhagavad Gita, in particular - do not offer a controlling story within which the readers are summoned to become characters. They do not speak of a single god who, as the unique creator, chooses to act in one specific family and location rather than all others in order thereby to address the whole world. This affects form as well as content. The Koran, the majestic monument to Muhammad, is a different sort of thing again, much more like (in fact) the kind of hard-edged 'authoritative' book which some would consider the Bible to be - or perhaps we should say into which they would like to turn the Bible. Even Judaism, whose Bible the church has made its own, doesn't tell a continuing story of the Christian sort, a story in which the readers are summoned to become fresh characters."
What the Christian believes about Jesus "generates a narrative within which one is called to live; that living within that story generates a call to a particular vocation within the world; and that the Bible is the book through which God sustains and directs those who seek to obey that vocation as intelligent, thinking, image-bearing human beings. The Bible constantly challenges its readers not to rest content."
Finally, Wright circle back to the meaning of truth. "The parables of the Bible are 'true' at several different levels; and to recognize this is not a way of saying, 'The only real 'truths' that matter are the 'spiritual' meanings, the things that didn't 'happen' as events in the real world. Truth is more complicated - more interesting, in fact - than that."
Indeed, it is.
January 23, 2025
I’ve always liked listening to NT Wright because of his theologically nuanced takes and his warm temperament, so I figured I’d read his version of the fundamentals of Christianity to hear a new and refreshing way to explain the gospel. I was curious to see if his charm when speaking translates to his writing. It does…kinda.
This is the rare nonfiction book that reads like a crescendo. The momentum picks up as the book goes along, and I found myself reading in bigger chunks the closer I got to the end. The book is split into 3 parts:
1. Echoes of a voice - this is Wright’s way of asking: what are we really looking for as humans? He argues that there are “voices” hidden in our conscience and in the world that point to a better way of living that would make us fully human. We desire these things, but we aren’t quite able to reach them. He gives 4 things we hunger for as examples of these echoes: justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty. This section was admittedly a tough read. It has a lot of interesting nuggets about how humans stifle and distort God-given desires, but much of it was unfocused. It was hard to follow his train of thought.
2. Staring at the sun - Wright’s way of asking: who is Jesus and how does he help us find what we’re looking for? Here he explains who God is and how God revealed Himself: first through the nation of Israel, but ultimately in the person of Jesus, and then through the Holy Spirit after the resurrection. His main point is that we can’t learn about God by observing Him directly, the same way we can’t learn about the sun by staring at it directly. We have to use what He’s given us. It’s here that Wright explains the core of the gospel, which is that through Jesus, God offers freedom by entrance to a new world. A new world that includes justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty.
3. Reflecting the image - Wright’s way of asking: how do we follow Jesus? He breaks down the person of the Holy Spirit and the function of the church, and it’s here where Wright shines. He gives multiple beautiful illustrations for how best to understand our role in becoming “characters in the story” that God is writing in order to redeem the world. I’ll include 3:
i. The church is both a river – many bodies of water unifying into one, and a tree – one trunk branching off into millions of leaves and twigs. His idea for the river comes from the multiethnic nature of the church. The church is “every nation, tribe, and tongue” coming together to worship Him and partake of His presence. His idea for the tree derives from the multifaceted mission of the church. We all have individual roles and responsibilities, and while we come from the same root, we are all meant to branch off and have impact in different career fields, populations, countries, etc.
ii. He describes the “born again” experience as waking up from sleep. Some people get an alarm clock: a rude, shocking awakening to the overwhelming presence of God (think Apostle Paul), while others wake up slowly and deliberately, being half asleep for a long time until they finally decide to get up.
iii. Christian living means dying and resurrecting over and over again until Jesus comes. There are things in this world we’ll need to renounce (death), and other things we’ll need to rediscover (resurrect). In other words, as Christians we need to say “no” to some things because they are at odds with this new creation. But we also need to say “yes” to others because God still created the world as good, and we have to affirm the things that are good. How we figure out what our no’s and our yes’s are is through the ancient practices of Scripture, prayer, and community.
All in all, the book was an enjoyable read, and I learned some new metaphors for describing the Christian faith. If you’re already a believer, the first 50 pages might be tough, but it’s definitely worth reading on the whole.
This is the rare nonfiction book that reads like a crescendo. The momentum picks up as the book goes along, and I found myself reading in bigger chunks the closer I got to the end. The book is split into 3 parts:
1. Echoes of a voice - this is Wright’s way of asking: what are we really looking for as humans? He argues that there are “voices” hidden in our conscience and in the world that point to a better way of living that would make us fully human. We desire these things, but we aren’t quite able to reach them. He gives 4 things we hunger for as examples of these echoes: justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty. This section was admittedly a tough read. It has a lot of interesting nuggets about how humans stifle and distort God-given desires, but much of it was unfocused. It was hard to follow his train of thought.
2. Staring at the sun - Wright’s way of asking: who is Jesus and how does he help us find what we’re looking for? Here he explains who God is and how God revealed Himself: first through the nation of Israel, but ultimately in the person of Jesus, and then through the Holy Spirit after the resurrection. His main point is that we can’t learn about God by observing Him directly, the same way we can’t learn about the sun by staring at it directly. We have to use what He’s given us. It’s here that Wright explains the core of the gospel, which is that through Jesus, God offers freedom by entrance to a new world. A new world that includes justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty.
3. Reflecting the image - Wright’s way of asking: how do we follow Jesus? He breaks down the person of the Holy Spirit and the function of the church, and it’s here where Wright shines. He gives multiple beautiful illustrations for how best to understand our role in becoming “characters in the story” that God is writing in order to redeem the world. I’ll include 3:
i. The church is both a river – many bodies of water unifying into one, and a tree – one trunk branching off into millions of leaves and twigs. His idea for the river comes from the multiethnic nature of the church. The church is “every nation, tribe, and tongue” coming together to worship Him and partake of His presence. His idea for the tree derives from the multifaceted mission of the church. We all have individual roles and responsibilities, and while we come from the same root, we are all meant to branch off and have impact in different career fields, populations, countries, etc.
ii. He describes the “born again” experience as waking up from sleep. Some people get an alarm clock: a rude, shocking awakening to the overwhelming presence of God (think Apostle Paul), while others wake up slowly and deliberately, being half asleep for a long time until they finally decide to get up.
iii. Christian living means dying and resurrecting over and over again until Jesus comes. There are things in this world we’ll need to renounce (death), and other things we’ll need to rediscover (resurrect). In other words, as Christians we need to say “no” to some things because they are at odds with this new creation. But we also need to say “yes” to others because God still created the world as good, and we have to affirm the things that are good. How we figure out what our no’s and our yes’s are is through the ancient practices of Scripture, prayer, and community.
All in all, the book was an enjoyable read, and I learned some new metaphors for describing the Christian faith. If you’re already a believer, the first 50 pages might be tough, but it’s definitely worth reading on the whole.
November 5, 2025
In the title and mission of and blurbs for this book, Wright seems to want this book to be considered the remake of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. So forgive me if much of my review is based on comparing the two.
Where the first volume of Mere Christianity attempts a logical argument for the existence of God, Wright paints a picture of the world and suggests that picture can only be complete if God is present in it. Both arrive at similar destinations, but Wright opts for images instead of syllogisms. However, whereas Lewis followed this up with a volume about morality and then another about God's nature, Wright switches around the order. I would argue he has chosen the more logical flow, with morality being a response to what we know about God. In terms of structure, I think Wright does a better job than Lewis.
As for the promise both give not to take sides in denominational debates, I can only say Wright's attempt is weaker. This is in part because he can't help but tackle such debates (whereas Lewis limited himself to what everyone agrees on). In most instances Wright simply suggests how we can look past the debate, but in his chapter on Worship he heavily implies that the high church worship service is superior to low church services. He may be right, and considering he is an Anglican he ought to feel that way, but it still feels like a broken promise to me. Lewis seems to me the more successful at not unconsciously setting up his own denomination (also Anglicanism) as the ideal Christianity.
Finally, we get to the quality of their thoughts. Both books are largely intended for non-believers or new believers, so they're fairly simple fare for both authors. Both repeat a lot of what they've written in other books. But whereas Lewis's theological writings were widely varied in topic, just about all of Wright's public-facing work has been variations on the same theme. So whereas Mere Christianity feels like Lewis bringing together the disparate strands of his thought into one simplified volume (or else a launching pad for many more specific conversations), Simply Christian feels like Wright simply dumbing down all the stuff he always says. That's not to say that this book isn't informative at all, as I did occasionally find something to learn, and often something to convict me. But on the whole, this isn't really a necessary read if you've already read other books by and/or attended lectures by Wright.
Ultimately, the Lewis homage that is the title feels more like a marketing ploy. Wright quotes Lewis only once in the text itself. Otherwise I get the sense Lewis was one of the many misguided modern Christians Wright is attempting to correct. But never explicitly saying that leaves this feeling of disconnect. Not to mention positioning this as an implicit rebuttal (and yet almost explicit homage to) Lewis and yet also making this for non-believers and new believers seems an odd strategy to me.
I do like this book, but it has a couple identity crises that really should have been sorted out in the edit.
Where the first volume of Mere Christianity attempts a logical argument for the existence of God, Wright paints a picture of the world and suggests that picture can only be complete if God is present in it. Both arrive at similar destinations, but Wright opts for images instead of syllogisms. However, whereas Lewis followed this up with a volume about morality and then another about God's nature, Wright switches around the order. I would argue he has chosen the more logical flow, with morality being a response to what we know about God. In terms of structure, I think Wright does a better job than Lewis.
As for the promise both give not to take sides in denominational debates, I can only say Wright's attempt is weaker. This is in part because he can't help but tackle such debates (whereas Lewis limited himself to what everyone agrees on). In most instances Wright simply suggests how we can look past the debate, but in his chapter on Worship he heavily implies that the high church worship service is superior to low church services. He may be right, and considering he is an Anglican he ought to feel that way, but it still feels like a broken promise to me. Lewis seems to me the more successful at not unconsciously setting up his own denomination (also Anglicanism) as the ideal Christianity.
Finally, we get to the quality of their thoughts. Both books are largely intended for non-believers or new believers, so they're fairly simple fare for both authors. Both repeat a lot of what they've written in other books. But whereas Lewis's theological writings were widely varied in topic, just about all of Wright's public-facing work has been variations on the same theme. So whereas Mere Christianity feels like Lewis bringing together the disparate strands of his thought into one simplified volume (or else a launching pad for many more specific conversations), Simply Christian feels like Wright simply dumbing down all the stuff he always says. That's not to say that this book isn't informative at all, as I did occasionally find something to learn, and often something to convict me. But on the whole, this isn't really a necessary read if you've already read other books by and/or attended lectures by Wright.
Ultimately, the Lewis homage that is the title feels more like a marketing ploy. Wright quotes Lewis only once in the text itself. Otherwise I get the sense Lewis was one of the many misguided modern Christians Wright is attempting to correct. But never explicitly saying that leaves this feeling of disconnect. Not to mention positioning this as an implicit rebuttal (and yet almost explicit homage to) Lewis and yet also making this for non-believers and new believers seems an odd strategy to me.
I do like this book, but it has a couple identity crises that really should have been sorted out in the edit.
July 18, 2023
My favorite of the books I've read by Wright, and a bit of a surprise as Wright's books have frequently left me grumpy even when I agreed with them. This is a long form explanation of the gospel and practical theology (with some apologetics mixed in) from his theological perspective. It helped that I had previous exposure to Wright's ideas, but this exposure probably also highlighted the fact that he barely mentions sin, personal salvation, justification, forgiveness, or life after death. My kindle edition has an endorsement from vampire-novelist Anne Rice on the cover, for which I award it bonus points.
February 9, 2022
In the introduction, Wright says that his goal is "to describe what Christianity is all about, both to commend it to those outside the faith and to explain it to those inside." I think he was more successful with the latter than with the former. Although the book was organized into pretty distinct parts and even chapters (see below), the thoughts in the chapters themselves were sometimes hard to follow, and would be even more so for someone who is unfamiliar with Christianity.
Part 1 is philosophical and is about how people hear "echoes of a voice" regarding justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty. These things always feel just out of reach to us, Wright says. I liked it, but it felt very "stream of consciousness" and was hard for me to follow at times. I think that Tim Keller's "The Reason for God" does a better job of addressing these (and more) topics in a more organized way.
Part 2 is an examination of the voice behind the echoes of Part 1, with chapters on God, Jesus, and the Spirit. The chapters on Israel (unexpected!) and the Spirit were really helpful for me personally. I do think he made some odd topic choices given his (acknowledged) limited space to write on God. For example, he devoted a chunk of one chapter to the word "God," how it differs depending on who you're talking to and how the writers of the OT used it. Which is great and interesting information, but...I don't know, it seemed like we parked there for a long time relative to the information about God you could tell someone. This is one reason I think this book is more helpful as a Christian than it would be to a non-Christian.
Part 3 was easily my favorite! Wright talks about living as part of the new creation in light of what we know about God and how the overlapping of heaven and earth coincide with the overlapping of God's future and our present (his two major themes of the book). Lots here to digest. Hoping that his sequel of sorts "After You Believe" goes deeper into these things.
A couple highlights of this book for me are (1) how he talks about salvation (he only uses this word AFTER he has already spent a lot of time explaining what it means) and (2) how he talks about reading the Bible. I can't do either of these points justice here, so read it yourself.
Overall, a really good book, but I would hesitate to recommend it to a non-Christian mainly because it might be confusing. It didn't feel as much like an introduction to the Christian religion as I think the author intended. But there's a LOT of really good stuff in here.
-----
"Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our fully human role, as agents...of the new day that is dawning. That, quite simply, is what it means to be Christian: to follow Jesus Christ into the new world, God's new world, which he has thrown open before us."
Part 1 is philosophical and is about how people hear "echoes of a voice" regarding justice, spirituality, relationships, and beauty. These things always feel just out of reach to us, Wright says. I liked it, but it felt very "stream of consciousness" and was hard for me to follow at times. I think that Tim Keller's "The Reason for God" does a better job of addressing these (and more) topics in a more organized way.
Part 2 is an examination of the voice behind the echoes of Part 1, with chapters on God, Jesus, and the Spirit. The chapters on Israel (unexpected!) and the Spirit were really helpful for me personally. I do think he made some odd topic choices given his (acknowledged) limited space to write on God. For example, he devoted a chunk of one chapter to the word "God," how it differs depending on who you're talking to and how the writers of the OT used it. Which is great and interesting information, but...I don't know, it seemed like we parked there for a long time relative to the information about God you could tell someone. This is one reason I think this book is more helpful as a Christian than it would be to a non-Christian.
Part 3 was easily my favorite! Wright talks about living as part of the new creation in light of what we know about God and how the overlapping of heaven and earth coincide with the overlapping of God's future and our present (his two major themes of the book). Lots here to digest. Hoping that his sequel of sorts "After You Believe" goes deeper into these things.
A couple highlights of this book for me are (1) how he talks about salvation (he only uses this word AFTER he has already spent a lot of time explaining what it means) and (2) how he talks about reading the Bible. I can't do either of these points justice here, so read it yourself.
Overall, a really good book, but I would hesitate to recommend it to a non-Christian mainly because it might be confusing. It didn't feel as much like an introduction to the Christian religion as I think the author intended. But there's a LOT of really good stuff in here.
-----
"Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our fully human role, as agents...of the new day that is dawning. That, quite simply, is what it means to be Christian: to follow Jesus Christ into the new world, God's new world, which he has thrown open before us."
March 24, 2020
This is a worthwhile read. I feel Wright focuses on almost 15 years earlier the echoes that are part of our contemporary moment. Areas that because of our truncated view of the Christian faith we have neglected or marginalized. Justice, Spirituality, Relationship and Beauty all areas where would should embody and announce the gospel of the Kingdom of God that is at hand to a watching world.
January 18, 2025
Style detracts from message
There is little doubt that Wright understands Christianity far better than me. There are some through lines in this book that I found helpful in giving me a new understanding of my faith. But I found myself wishing that a stronger editor had been present. The sentences and paragraphs here are so overwrought that only with extreme focus was I able to really benefit from what I was reading. I’m glad I read this, since I had long wanted to read a book by Wright. I find him insightful when I encounter him on podcasts. But, ultimately this is a book I would have a difficult time recommending to others if only because of the nature of the prose.
There is little doubt that Wright understands Christianity far better than me. There are some through lines in this book that I found helpful in giving me a new understanding of my faith. But I found myself wishing that a stronger editor had been present. The sentences and paragraphs here are so overwrought that only with extreme focus was I able to really benefit from what I was reading. I’m glad I read this, since I had long wanted to read a book by Wright. I find him insightful when I encounter him on podcasts. But, ultimately this is a book I would have a difficult time recommending to others if only because of the nature of the prose.
December 27, 2025
With quite the Lewisian cadence, Wright offers a comprehensive crash course in Christianity. His insights reveal vital aspects of the Christian faith that our culture, in its quest for meaning, would do well to heed. That said, I got a bit lost in his “option 1, option 2” examples throughout the book. I also think that this work suffers a bit in accessibility—for a non-believer who had a background in Christianity or academia/scholarship, I think Wright’s work here would be quite transformative. For a person with no knowledge of the Christian faith, however, Wright’s extensive research may not come across as “simple.” I would recommend this book for anyone interested in diving deeper into the Christian faith, and I commend Wright for his excellent and relevant conclusions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 646 reviews