Rev Dr Chris Wright
Chris Wright was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1947, the son of missionary parents, and nurtured as an Irish Presbyterian. After university in Cambridge, he started his career as a schoolteacher in Grosvenor High School, Belfast. Then, after completing a doctorate in Old Testament economic ethics in Cambridge, he was ordained in the Anglican Church of England in 1977 and served as an assistant pastor in the Parish Church of St. Peter & St. Paul, Tonbridge, Kent.
In 1983 he took his family to India and taught at the Union Biblical Seminary (UBS), Pune for five years as a mission partner with Crosslinks (formerly BCMS). While at UBS he taught a variety of Old Testament courses at BD and MTh levels. In 1988 he returned to the UK as Academic Dean at All Nations Christian College (an international training centre for cross-cultural mission). Then he was appointed Principal there in September 1993.
In September 2001 he was appointed International Director of the Langham Partnership International. This is a group of ministries originally founded by John Stott, committed to the strengthening of the church in the Majority World through fostering leadership development, biblical preaching, literature and doctoral scholarships. (www.langhampartnership.org).
Chris is also the Chair of the Lausanne Theology Working Group.
Chris and his wife, Liz, belong to All Souls Church, Langham Place, London, where Chris enjoys preaching from time to time as a member of the Staff team.
He has written several books, including:
Living as the People of God: The Relevance of OT Ethics (IVP)
God’s People in God’s Land (Eerdmans / Paternoster)
Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament (Monarch / IVP)
Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament (Monarch, IVP)
Knowing God the Father through the Old Testament (Monarch, IVP)
Deuteronomy: New International Biblical Commentary (Hendrikson / Paternoster)
Thinking Clearly about the Uniqueness of Jesus (Monarch)
The Message of Ezekiel, The Bible Speaks Today (IVP)
Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (IVP)
The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (IVP)
Life Through God’s Word: Psalm 119 (Authentic)
Salvation Belongs to Our God: Celebrating the Bible’s Central Story (IVP)
Chris, who enjoys running, birding, and watching rugby, has a passion to bring to life the relevance of the OT to Christian mission and ethics, and loves preaching and teaching the Bible. He and his wife Liz live in London and have four adult children and five grandchildren.
Download a PDF version
Christopher J H Wright 
Thanks for your great work in “The Message Of Ezekiel” which I am thoroughly enjoying.
As I was attempting to drift off to sleep last night, the book I’ve been poking away at (at least the research) for the past several years suddenly took on a life of its own. The structure, organizing metaphor, and the voice snapped with stunning clarity into consciousness.
As to voice, the book told me, “This will be good scholarship, written so as to be accessible to the thoughtful lay reader, in an engaging manner that invites the reader on a journey.”
As I pondered this I thought, “Just like Chris Wright’s _The Mission of God’s People_!”
Thought you should know. I’m a fan of your work.
Thanks for the book Finding Jesus in the Old Testament, really opened my eyes to what it contains. I wish we were told this when I was undertaking ministerial training.
Thanks, Roy, I’m so glad it was helpful!
Mr. Wright, My name is Adrian, I am from Mexico City, I wrote a book about spirituality and psychotherapy, recently I have been reading that the word AMEN is not “let it be” as a translation but a reference to AMON RA. Is this true? I have search the web but cant find any good standing reference so thats why I am asking you as a great scholar and authority on the issue
Dear Adrian, No, that is certainly not true. The word Amen is a Hebrew word, from the verb that means to be firm or trustworthy. It has the sense of “confirmed” . or “agreed”, or, “That’s for sure”. It was simply transliterated into Greek and then became universal. Like Hallelujah – which as I’m sure you know, is also Hebrew, and means “Praise the LORD!”
Mr Wright, I am using this as the only means I have to contact you. Your parents began a work among the Timbira/Gaviao Indian tribe in northern Brazil in the early 40s. They were forced to leave that work during the war. My wife and I reopened the work in 1964 with New Tribes Mission. Your parents visited us during our time there and stayed in our home in the little interior town. We took them to the Indian village. We have a few pictures of them during that visit if you would like to have them. I can send them by email if I had your email address. Earl Whittaker
[…] To view his full biography, click here. […]
Rev. Dr. Wright,
I am a seminary student reading your book “The mission of God’s people“. In a recent response to you book I wrote:
I must confess that when I began reading this book it seemed the Rev. Wright was using the word mission as a covert cover for evangelizing. I wonder if Christopher Wright, because of his being Anglican, consciously or unconsciously chose not to use the term evangelize. Having roots, myself, in Catholicism, I am aware that evangelical concepts are not used and often viewed as something that those “other Christians” do. I wonder if Wright made a conscious choice to shy away from frequent use of evangelical terms?
I would love to hear your thoughts. I do understand that as you explain in the book that “mission” is much more than just spreading the Word of God. Yet I am still left to wonder if there was any thought behind mission vs. evangelism.
Mark
Sorry for the long delay in responding. In that book I was not so much interested in the current debates over what our mission involves (which certainly in my view does involve evangelism), as in seeking to understand the mission of God as revealed within the whole canon of Scripture, as the goal and purpose of the great biblical narrative. From that point of view, God calls us, his people, to participate with him in what God is doing in his world – and that includes word and deed. In my mind there is no. “vs” in words like mission and evangelism. Bearing witness to the good news of what God has done in history to accomplish the reconciliation and redemption of the whole creation in and through Christ, in which we can be included through repentance and faith, is of course an essential part of who and what we are as disciples of Christ. As far as I am aware, my denominational identity did / does not influence my attempts at biblical / missiological reflection. I was brought up Presbyterian in Belfast, and joined the Anglican church in England after we were married, since it was our local evangelical church!
I have benefited greatly from your writings!
In looking at your most recent book, I have a question.
There has been a lot written on The Divine Counsel in the Old Testament.
What are your thoughts on this concept?
I was not aware that there is more discussion these days about ’the divine counsel’ (or ‘council’) – perhaps there is in your context.
The Bible does tell us that God has a ’surrounding’ (as it were) company of the angelic hosts who do his will and seem to be consulted by him as he executes his sovereign plans and purposes. However, these are not what I am referring to in my book when I talk about gods and idols. For the most part, the Bible describes the false gods as ’the work of man’s hands’ – that is they are human constructs, product of our own imagination or ideology or manufacture – to which we give apparent power over our lives. But they are not God, and not gods either – except in the sense of being things that we choose to worship, but have no real divine power.
The Bible also does tell us about the existence of fallen angels, evil spirits, demons, etc – but they are not reckoned as part of the divine counsel, since they are opposed to God and his will.
When Job 1 talks about ’the satan’ who appears before God, apparently in God’s council, the word should not be read as simply the same as Satan in the N.T. sense of the word. In Hebrew the word simply means ’the accuser’ – and it seems like this ‘one of the sons of God’ (which is a way the O.T. sometimes speaks of angels) is the one assigned to the task of exposing wrong doing and bringing it to God’s attention, as it were. Rather like a ‘public prosecutor’, or ‘district attorney’ – somebody with the task of accusing those who do wrong. After ch. 2, he plays no further part in the story. He just sets up the big question at the start of the book.
Personally, I do not see that the text of the Bible itself gives us grounds to imagine that there were 72 ‘gods’ assigned to the nations in Genesis. From Daniel, it does seem that there are angelic powers linked in some way to peoples and nations – but there is very little said about what they are or what they do, and we are never instructed to pray to them, or to engage with them in any way – but leave them to God.
On the whole, I think this is an area that is relatively marginal to the main message and teaching of the Bible, and should not make us get into all kinds of speculation, or any attempt to ‘engage’ with such angelic powers. We serve the living God, we pray to him alone, and we resist the evil one in the name of Jesus – and trust in God’s sovereign governance of the universe according to his saving purpose and judgement.
I think that’s all I can say in reply.
Hello Dr Wright
Just watched a video of you speaking at FACM 2018. You used the phrase ‘my two big books’.
I assume one of these was the one you referred to in the talk, ‘OT Ethics For The People Of God’. Correct? But secondly, which is the other ‘big book’?
Thanks Geoff Matthews
I have led a class through the Book of Daniel, and based much of the material on your book “Hearing the Message of Daniel.” What a wonderful resource! We regularly had over 130 people “out” on Zoom from Singapore to Calgary to Toronto. Thanks for writing this book! Such a gift to the church. Warmly, Rev. David T. Wood, Coquitlam, BC.
Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad the book was helpful! Chris
I am reading The Mission of God’s People. Wonderful! Reading Ch. 5 – People Who Walk in God’s Way. Sodom is a paradigm of human society at its worst. But this is troubling me – what “worlds” are Sodom-like today. Have we, the church in the U.S., imagining we are “God’s people,” yet seeming proud, self-indulging, using the creation, hostile to “the evil world” rather loving and coming along side – become too much a part of the “Sodom paradigm?” We seem to have a fort mentality – a fort to fight off the evil rather than as an outpost to love and serve. Where is this headed? Thanks!
I’m afraid I agree with your suspicion that the church in the west in general, and in the US, is very much “living in Sodom” itself – in some of the ways described by Ezekiel in 16:49. There is such syncretism and idolatry in the western church that I cannot help but see a lot of the paradigm of O.T. judgment on Israel being replicated in the contemporary world. For that reason, I wrote another small book that you may have come across – “Here Are Your Gods”, Faithful Discipleship in Idolatrous Times (InterVarsity Press). That fills out my thinking a bit more in this area.
Dear brother Chris, I am enjoying your BST contribution on Jeremiah! Do you think it is possible that chapter 26 is added to round off a unit rather than begin a new section? In that case an inclusio is formed and apart from that a chronology in reverse order (597-605-609 BC) is created by chapters 24-25-26, maybe to emphasise cause and event, just like there might be a chronology in reverse order in chapters 34-35-36.
It’s been a long time since I wrote that commentary, but I think your suggestion is indeed a possibility. There may always be an element of mystery about the editorial structuring of the book of Jeremiah, and various patterns have been discerned. But the inclusio and reverse chronology of 24-25-26 is interesting, as is that of 34-35-36. It is certainly a possible interpretation of the editors’ intention. We shall have to wait until we can ask Baruch! (to whom I think we owe the book – though the history of the scrolls is fascinating, with the differences between the MT and the LXX formats – probably representing the preservation processes that happened in Mesopotamia and in Egypt).
Christopher – Thank you for your ministry. My favorite book that I have read so far this year has been the portrait of John Stott that you edited (my lived in London for a brief period when I was a baby when my dad had the opportunity to spend a few months studying with Uncle John).
I have been wrestling with your chapter on Love in your wonderful book, Cultivating the Fruit of the Spirit. Your text suggests that the application of the love within the first fruit of the Spirit is love for one another as Christians.
Aren’t we to love all people, not just Christians? I have been struggling with (what appears to be) your exclusion of non-Christians when you apply texts such as John 15:12.
Kind Regards,
Nathan Gordon
Thank you for your kind words. I certainly don’t exclude loving non-Christians! I would certainly see that included in Jesus’ inclusion of Lev. 19 along with Deut. 6 in “the greatest commandment” -i.e. love of neighbour, including in his expansion, your enemies. But in Jn 15 and Gal 5 and such texts, I do think the primary meaning there is the love that believers must have among themselves – especially when that involves loving those whom God has brought into his family from utterly different communities to your own – as was the case with Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus in the early church. Their love for one another was evidence (fruit) of the Holy Spirit, and proof of the power of the gospel. So, I would say that the way we love one another in the CHristian community ought to bear witness to the gospel, which is then further substantiated by the way we love others in society at large in works of compassion, justice, etc. – in other words, both forms of love have missional motivation and impact.
My mother died recently. She had many books and one of them was “Living as the People of God: The Relevance of OT Ethics”.
In it, Christopher writes that God acted first and then spoke. I disagree. I think God spoke and then acted. Consider creation and making of everything.
Surely God spoke before he acted ? Specifically I am looking at pages 21-22 onwards and inclusive.
I’d like some response to this.
God bless
PR
Thank you for your question. My point on those pages is not about the order of God acting and God speaking. You are right – God can speak and then act (as he did at the time of the exodus – telling Moses what he intended to do, and then doing it), or act and then speak. That’s God’s sovereign choice. My point was rather about the order of God’s action and human response, namely that in his covenantal relations with Israel, God takes the initiative and then calls people to respond – out of gratitude and trust. The point is very clear in texts like Ex. 19:4-6. “You have seen what I have done…. now then, if you….”, and in the opening of the Decalogue, “I am the Lord your God who brought you up….” This is an important point to grasp: in the Old as much as in the New Testament, human obedience is a response to saving grace, not a means of earning God’s favour. Grace in action comes first!
Dear Dr Wright
Are you the Chris Wright who has contributed to the LLF Project? If so are you OK if I ask you a question about your conversation with Walter Moberly please? It’s quite OK if you say ‘no’!
Regards
Phil Almond
Yes OK. But I will not be able to enter into long conversation. Will send you my email separately.
Dear Dr Wright I am a member of Wycilffe Bible Translators and SIL, for whom I am a member ot our creation care task force. I attended the conference on Irish Council of Churches, at which you spoke on Biblical basis for creation care. It was the clearest and most thorough presentation I have head on the topic. I would love to share it with colleagues. I can refer them to the youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzJfDH2PPhQ but would love to edit that so it just your presentation for ease of reference . Would you allow that?
Thanks again for the presentation and for considering this request
Michael Jemphrey michael_jemphrey@sil.org
Sorry to be so late replying to this. But yes – if you wish to edit it to include only my lecture, please do so (if you have not already!).
[…] CW är bland annat präst och forskare.Texterna är hämtad från sidorna 94-95 i hans bok ”Den enda vägen?”, utgiven 1997. Dessa två sidor kan läsas här. […]
I´m finished “The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative” for my SBTS class…
I just had in mind, how Gn 12:1-3 could correlate with Mt 28… you answered this and another questions. Thanks.
Now, I´m have an intrigue, about a “christologic view of missioloigcal context” about the sin of the church, thinking in a correlation about Judges, mission and the church. I don´t know if I can say that the time of the Judges was the initial point of the tie off of the exile, but just as you mention, Israel was commanded (Dt 4) to be a bless for all the nations, and they started to worshp another gods.
I have some (or a lot) questios about that correlations (the Salvation, the Judges, the sin of the church and missions). Thanks, thanks, thanks.
Be blessed.
Dr. Wright, my church book group is reading Cultivating the Fruit of the Spirit. I am having problems understanding when you include a scripture and add, “emphasis mine.” Could you explain?
Thanks.
Sorry that was confusing! When an author quotes a text from the Bible (or any other book), and chooses to emphasis some word or phrase, because of a point they are making, by putting it in italics (when the original text is not in italics), then it is customary to say “emphasis mine”, or “italics mine” – simply to say, “I’m the one who has emphasised those words, which are not in italics in the original text.” I hope that makes sense! Glad you’re enjoying the book. Chris.