Abstract
The first important point about this work is that the title of the book will appear completely different, depending on whether you live in the UK or the US. In the UK version, and presumably the original, the title is Virtue Reborn; the US version is titled: After You Believe. There is a world of theological assumptions hidden in this title change – reflecting the theological appetite of the (primarily evangelical) Protestant Church in the US where salvation and sanctification or Christian growth are firewalled away from each other.
However, using the UK title, which is presumably the title of choice for Professor Wright, it is hardly an exaggeration to assert, as Professor Wright does, that virtue is being ‘reborn’. But the irony of course is that this imagery of a rebirth applies only if you are speaking for a Protestant context/audience. So strong, though (and why the language of rebirth is indeed appropriate), has been the Protestant repudiation of virtues that a leading social scientist writes: Moral Philosophy changed with the growing influence of Christianity, which saw God as the giver of laws by which one should live. Righteous conduct no longer stemmed from the inner virtues but rather from obedience to the commandments of God. (Peterson and Seligman, 2004, p. 10)
This quotation by a leading social scientist confounds Christianity with Protestantism; for Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, virtues need no recovery and growth in God (theosis) is a growth in virtues. But this error aside, the Protestant tradition has tended to view efforts to develop ‘virtues’ as dangerously close to ‘works’ salvation. Noted ethicist Eugene Outka notes: ‘Protestants object to any claim that certain agents possess something laudatory or that such a state can deliberately be cultivated’ (Outka 1977, p. 146) . This is why the related issue of character development has not been a staple in Christian theological literature and highlights the truly pioneering work of Stanley Hauerwas in decades past, and here, this much later work by NT Wright.
In terms of Wright’s overall theological project, his ‘Kingdom’ understanding of justification/salvation provides fertile soil for a rebirth of the virtues. He writes: ‘the discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot- at least in terms of understanding Paul- and they have stayed there ever since’ (Wright, 1997, p. 115). This understanding of justification (payment of a sin debt), and a pitting of God’s power as in opposition to humans’ (the technical term here is monergism coming from the Augustinian legacy) has meant the side-lining of the virtue tradition and the imitatio Christi. Much in Wright’s corpus is to correct this error.
So, the first important thing to say is that Wright’s overall theological project, which has rightly received such great praise, clears a pathway for the greater appreciation of the virtues in Christian life, and this book on the virtues is an organic extension of his thought. And what is also clear is that his overall theological approach lends itself to social activism. As missions scholar Verkuyl put it: ‘Viewing our missionary task within the wider perspective of the kingdom will lead us to still another insight: participation in the fight against every vestige of evil plaguing mankind’ (Verkuyl, 1988: 201). So from the perspective of mission as transformation, and virtues such as justice as constitutive of this, there is much to be grateful for in NT’s lifework.
So what of Wright’s treatment of the virtues in this specific text? First of all, as with NT’s works, they are lucid – easy to read and follow. This is a good introductory text that focuses less on historical debates of the nature of the virtues (e.g. Catholicism’s natural vs supernatural virtues – a distinction which Eastern Orthodoxy rejects) but rather on Biblical texts. However, anyone who has read Stanley Hauerwas or the many fine Catholic writers on the virtues (for example, Peter Kreeft, but especially of course Thomas Aquinas himself), may be disappointed or at least feel that the treatment is a bit superficial – which might be forgiven as this is not Professor Wright’s main arena. However, the simple fact that Professor Wright is writing on the virtues is itself a sign of, and will be a major contributory factor, to their modern rebirth.
Wright’s list of virtues are: Love, Patience, Humility, Chastity and Charity – with Charity of love being central. This list and approach does not view some virtues as natural and some as supernatural – meaning that they require both God’s grace and human effort – even if God’s grace plays the leading role. He asks the question: ‘If it isn’t, after all, a matter of self-help moralism – making oneself better entirely by one’s own effort – how is it done?’ In answering this, Professor Wright provides a helpful ‘cycle’ of the virtues that deserves comment. He offers a diagram (p. 260) called the ‘virtuous circle’ whereby Scripture is at top, then stories, examples, one’s community, and then practices. It does not matter where one enters the circle as these items are all mutually implicative in the formation of Christian character.
This diagram and the explanations are very helpful in that it shows the communal nature of the virtues, their content being provided through narratives and especially the Biblical text, but also the force of role models who embody the tradition. But from the perspective of mission as holistic transformation, I have one small qualm with one of the definitions in NT’s circle. It concerns the fact that he defines practice primarily as liturgy or worship in the church, and does not adequately emphasize practice for social justice outside the church. The great merit of the virtue tradition is that it shows how actions and attitudes form habits that form character. The liturgy in the Church as a shaper of identity is fundamentally important, but the liturgy or service outside of the Church is equally fundamental as well, which is undoubtedly why Christ himself placed the Second Great commandment as equal to and ‘like’ the first. The two controlling poles of a Biblically inspired virtuous circle must be Love for God (service/worship in the Church), and Love for Neighbour (service in the world for the most vulnerable). Of course, Professor Wright’s fuller theological vision grasps this. Perhaps it is just that his limited experience with the virtue tradition meant that he could not translate the fullness of his own profoundly holistic Biblical vision in the language of the virtues.