24
Mar
2010
Can This Be Wright?
Apparently Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s Center for Faith and Work is hosting N.T. Wright, on April 20th, to speak about his latest release, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. How is this not a tacit approval of Wright?
About Post Author
Was Westminster’s hosting of Hitchens and Wilson an endorsement of either man’s position across the line?
Robert,
That was a debate.
“How is this not a tacit approval of Wright?” Exactly. It’s hard to see it any other way. Thanks for raising the question, May God grant grace to arrive at the right answer. My whole tendency is to view NPP as another gospel. That there are quite a few respected voices like Keller not willing to denounce NPP and Wright with such vehemency gives me pause. I just can’t understand why the pass for Wright? I want to understand – so I’m writing and asking with humility. Why the pass for Wright?
Robert,
WTS is not a church. It’s a school. That distinction makes all the difference.
WSC has had speakers from a wide variety of backgrounds, some not recognizably Christian, so that our students can hear for themselves and interact with important contemporary thinkers.
The church as such, as an institution, has different obligations and a different audience. It’s job is not to expose its members to the most brilliant advocates of unbelief but to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, and to practice discipline.
Pingback : N. T. Wright to Speak at Redeemer NYC « Heidelblog
Pingback : Heidel Blog – N. T. Wright to Speak at Redeemer NYC « Pilgrimage to Geneva
Pingback : Heidel Blog – N. T. Wright to Speak at Redeemer NYC « Narrow is the Path
Thanks Nick and also R. Scott Clark for bringing this to our attention. This is troubling and Reformed leaders who have the voice where the lay person doesn’t need to say something to men such as Mr. Keller. Last year Mr. Keller also had some other troubling areas; one having to do with the endorsing of the contemplative mysticism in one of their church teaching classes/sunday school. Now he did not personally teach these, but gave full endorsement to the woman who was teaching (if I’m mistaken on the exact details of who was teaching, my apologies) and some christian discernment ministries tried to warn but not much was made of this. To many times we give free passes to teachers for whatever reasons, like being alumni or friends. In love these men need to be reproved, regardless of their great work in the past. We need men like of old to take on the unpopular and polemical tasks in the church and institute.
N.T. Wright is getting away with way too much these days because of his so called great work in other areas of the faith. It’s not only his heretical views on justification that should be challenged but if we are to look deeper into his views on many other cardinal doctrines, I think maybe we could finally put him to bed along with his false teaching. Thanks again, and keep us apprised.
Jason
Hhm, interesting question. Food for thought, “Since the Center for Faith and Work could be deemed an extension of the church – perhaps in the same way as a school – and not the church itself, couldn’t Wright’s invitation fall under a similar category as referred to by Dr. Scott above?” Opinions?
Jesse,
Following Clark’s arguement, it could be justified that way–except for the fact that the words, “a ministry of Redeemer Presbyterian Church†are written directly under the title on the website for the Center for Faith and Work. I think that Clark’s point is helpful, but I would suggest that it would be wrong to have Wright at a Reformed seminary too-unless it was to have one of the profs debate him.
Jesse,
I have been waiting for someone to pick up on the fact that the talk was hosted immediately by the Center for Faith and Work and that it would cost $20.00. At least Redeemer is not having him in the pulpit on Sunday morning. That is one redeeming aspect.
@ Nicholas:
In regards to academic institutions, I don’t have a problem with various people coming to speak on a certain topic for students to engage.
Good point about Redeemer not having him speak during worship services.
Jesse
didn’t the study committee of the pca on the fv/npp praise wright’s work in other areas besides justification (i’m thinking here of his work on defending the resurrection, the historical jesus, etc.)?
since they did, i find it hard to believe that having wright speak about other issues, such as he is at the center for faith and work, is wrong and/or an approval of his views of justification.
think about it: they did not have him speak earlier, when he was focusing his work on second temple judaism, the historical jesus, and justification. but now he is publishing a book on sanctification (i.e., faith and work). it makes sense that they would have him speak on that topic at this time.
reading anything else into this is nonsense.
Pingback : Tim Keller hosting NT Wright? « Faith and Life
Nick, just so you know where I’m coming from, I’ll be completely forthright. I would gladly welcome N.T. Wright into my pulpit. I think he’s an excellent scholar and a godly church leader.
That said, how would I feel about this if I shared your opinion of Wright? Hmmm, even then I’m not sure why you object. He’s not preaching in a service, right? Don’t we trust our laypeople to discern different contexts? I would think the typical disclaimer (“opinions expressed are not necessarily those, etc….”) should be enough to clarify the situation.
I remember back in 1996 when WTS (Philly) invited Richard John Neuhaus to speak at a conference on religion and politics. I know it’s different for a school; however, there was no debate and RJN and his address were received warmly. If there was a controversy, I was oblivious to it. I don’t think anyone for a moment assumed that WTS was endorsing all of RJN’s theology or encouraging us to read him uncritically. I know I didn’t.
(Incidentally, I do remember some head-scratching at the decision to have Chuck Colson speak at the conference honoring Van Til in 1995. It was nothing against Colson per se, but a lot of us wondered how much he knew about Van Til. If his speech was any indication, it was not very much.)
This is a troubling comment: “but if we are to look deeper into his views on many other cardinal doctrines, I think maybe we could finally put him to bed along with his false teaching.”