This is the final post in a series exploring the connections between N.T. Wright’s 1978 book, Small Faith, Great God, (recently rereleased by IVP) and his current writings. We’ve already looked at the early signs of the justification debate, Wright’s early view of the atonement, and the contrast between his early and late writings on heaven.
Today, we look at Wright’s early understanding of Christian morality and how the seeds for his later view of virtue are planted early on. Most fascinating to me is Wright’s distinction between good and bad hypocrisy. Note what he writes in 1978:
There are some things the world calls hypocrisy which are inevitable for the Christian. They are even to be welcomed… One of the things the world calls hypocrisy is doing things we do not really want to do at the time. Unless we really want to do it, we are hypocritical if we go through the motions… If God says, for example, we must pray regularly, then we must pray regularly: and one of the things we need to pray for is that God will bring our heart and feelings into line with what we already know to be our basic duty.
“Duty!” says someone. “Isn’t that just ‘putting it on?'” In a way it is. And if we don’t “put on” God’s holiness when we feel like being unholy, then we have guarded our sincerity at the cost of our obedience. That is why I say that there is a hypocrisy the Christian has to welcome. (96-97)
Wright goes on to make the point that we should not make sincerity an idol:
There is nothing wrong with the hypocrisy (so-called) that struggles to obey God’s commandments whether it wants to or not. In fact if we do not do that, then we are becoming Pharisees ourselves. We are setting a higher value on what others think (that sincerity is what counts) than on what God thinks (that obedience, or the desire and struggle for obedience, is what count). (98)
Either of these quotes could have been lifted from Wright’s recent work, After You Believe. (Wright uses the buzzword “authenticity” more than “sincerity” in his later work, but the concept is basically the same.)
In the three decades since he wrote Small Faith, Great God, Wright’s understanding of Christian virtue has deepened, but not changed. Then, as now, Wright ties Christian obedience to the good news that we are justified by faith alone:
Christian obedience is not done in order to earn favor with God; nothing we can do, not even our faith or our sincerity, can earn that favor. It is God’s gracious gift. It was the Pharisees who thought that they could earn God’s favor by good deeds. When we struggle to obey God, we are not doing it because we are trying to earn anything but because God has already accepted us, and so – as forgiven children of a loving father… – we begin to want to obey him. (99)
Wright includes a similar passage about grace-empowered virtue in After You Believe (pg. 60-62). Wright also connects virtue to the highest calling of the Christian. In Small Faith, Great God, Wright says: “The aim of being a Christian is – to love God and make him loved.” (131) With this purpose in the background, Wright connects law-keeping to love, showing up the defective nature of emphasizing duty apart from love. Here he sounds much like John Piper:
If a wife says to her husband, “Do you love me?” and he replies, “Yes, my dear. I do the washing-up for you every day,” that would only be a sensible or worthwhile answer if he meant that the washing-up was evidence of a love that in fact went far deeper. Love does not actually consist in washing up. But equally, if there were no such outward evidences, the wife might well wonder if the inner love was all it should be. (135)
Are there major differences between early Wright and later Wright in regards to virtue, sincerity, and obedience? No. In fact, I was surprised to see the consistency of Wright’s theology of virtue. It appears his early views have crystallized and deepened, but not changed over the years.
Conclusion
I’m certain there are other connections that curious readers could explore in Small Faith, Great God. The four issues I have chosen are the ones that most interested me. Perhaps curious readers can look into the emphasis Wright places on “the holiness of God” in 1978 or other such themes in his early work.
Overall, this book is worth reading and reflecting upon. Wright’s devotional thoughts are a combination of pastoral insight, exegetical precision and theological reflection. Even readers who are uncomfortable with Wright’s later theology will find they resonate with his earlier work.
