N. T. Wright on women bishops

[thomas15]

Since there is much love of this C of E theologian in this Baptist forum, I post this snip:

"All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene."

So basically, women can be priests but not sure about bishops.

for all you link lovers: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=759

 

[Yeshua1]

Since there is much love of this C of E theologian in this Baptist forum, I post this snip:

"All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene."

So basically, women can be priests but not sure about bishops.

for all you link lovers: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=759

Doesn't he view the scriptures though from a less than full inerrant view, so why theconfusion about him coming to to a non bilical position regarding this?

 

[preachinjesus]

The CoE is going through some tough times. Soon enough they will have to recognize and be forced to wed same-sex couples. The other issue, which nobody is taking about, is the entire thing is teetering on the brink of financial ruin. After electing a left facing Archbishop of Canterbury to replace Rowan Williams (who I always appreciate for both intellect and the ability to take fantastically awfully photos) they are in more of a tough spot.

When any denomination begins allowing for women to be priests/pastors they are only one or two steps from this kind of insanity. Perhaps more than any other rule of the past several decades, this one is tired and true. That is problem in the CoE. They have a woman as their head (the Queen...a ridiculous position) and women as priests but will not allow women for bishops.

Notice also how the media is reacting. They are coming down heavy and hard on the CoE for this discrepancy but even more so for their assumed misogyny. We are facing some difficult times across the board. I'm thankful that I'm not within a country-mile of these mainline denominations right now. The Church is becoming infested with apostate and unrepentant sinners who seek to drive it in one theological direction...which is in the opposite way of the Cross.

I'm thankful for NT Wright, but he's in a tight spot.

 

[Greektim]

Since there is much love of this C of E theologian in this Baptist forum, I post this snip:

"All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene."

So basically, women can be priests but not sure about bishops.

Doesn't he view the scriptures though from a less than full inerrant view, so why theconfusion about him coming to to a non bilical position regarding this?

I think these are some pretty vague accusations. I like the man as a historian and theologian. But that doesn't mean I think he is correct on everything.

First of all, the OP doesn't really prove anything. So it seems more as a purpose to deface or defame a great writer and scholar. (to not admit that is simply being dishonest).

The second post leveled an accusation w/ no explanation or offer of proof. Could it be that he has a realistic view or a broader canonical view wherein yours represents the results of a post-enlightment view clouded by modernity answering questions that no one is asking anymore (especially the Scriptures themselves)??? Truth is, you may call my view of scripture less than full innerant. I am not blind to the fact that there are some discrepancies in the accounts, but this is to be expected. Thus I hold to an ipsissima vox rather than ipsissima verba view of the gospel accounts and other narratives.

As the 3rd post said, he is in a difficult place b/c his denomination is moving more liberal.

 

[OldRegular]

Since there is much love of this C of E theologian in this Baptist forum, I post this snip:

"All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene."

So basically, women can be priests but not sure about bishops.

for all you link lovers: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=759

Don't believe I know the man!

 

[saturneptune]

Don't believe I know the man!

I would not think many Baptists would know officials from the Church of England or give a hoot about their doctrine.

 

[jaigner]

Doesn't he view the scriptures though from a less than full inerrant view, so why theconfusion about him coming to to a non bilical position regarding this?

Besides being almost unintelligible, this post is ridiculous. Who are you to call such a fantastic scholar "unbiblical." Whoops, sorry, "non bilical?"

I would not think many Baptists would know officials from the Church of England or give a hoot about their doctrine.

He's the world's leading evangelical scholar. Any evangelical who doesn't know him must not know much about biblical scholarship.

 

[Greektim]

Besides being almost unintelligible, this post is ridiculous. Who are you to call such a fantastic scholar "unbiblical." Whoops, sorry, "non bilical?"



He's the world's leading evangelical scholar. Any evangelical who doesn't know him must not know much about biblical scholarship.

Bingo on both accounts!!!

 

[Jerome]

I would not think many Baptists would know officials from the Church of England or give a hoot about their doctrine.

He's cited quite often on 9Mark Dever's site:

http://www.google.com/webhp?complet...org+"nt+wright"&oq=site:9marks.org+"nt+wright

 

[saturneptune]

He's cited quite often on 9Mark Dever's site:

http://www.google.com/webhp?complet...org+"nt+wright"&oq=site:9marks.org+"nt+wright

The Pope is also often quoted. I have studied the Bible all of my life. I wonder if Mr. Wright is aware of me.

 

[thomas15]

...

First of all, the OP doesn't really prove anything. So it seems more as a purpose to deface or defame a great writer and scholar. (to not admit that is simply being dishonest).

....

I provided the link for the purpose of further information. I expected that you in particular would react with disdain but the fact is this individual is a part of an institution that places a large emphasis on secular thinking. You don't like this but it is the truth. How often here on the BB do we see character assinations of dead theologians (unable to offer any explanations) of Scofield or Darby to discredit their theology? Fair game you say. But the living breathing and exhaulted N.T. Wright gets a pass for some unknown reason for basically doing and saying nothing about the rapid moral decline of his denomination.

I ask the question again, where is the integrity of this individual? An arguement could be made that in Wrights thinking the institution is more important than the divine revelation.

 

[Revmitchell]

Doesn't he view the scriptures though from a less than full inerrant view, so why theconfusion about him coming to to a non bilical position regarding this?

According to at least a couple in this forum Wright has much more of the Holy Ghost than anyone else. We should all bow at his feet and never question what he says. His words are always directly inspired by God.

 

[thomas15]

A little more from the link at the OP:

"All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene. Part of the point of the new creation launched at Easter was the transformation of roles and vocations: from Jews-only to worldwide, from monoglot to multilingual (think of Pentecost), and from male-only leadership to male and female together."


This actually points out a weakness in the reformed arguement that in Chist "there is no distinction" by using a faulty interpretation of Galatians ch 3: 28-29. But be that as it may, after reading and digesting the article at the OP link, it is hard to argue that in the future, when the cries to ordaine women C of E priests into bishops, the finest living theologian in the history of evangelicalism will be simply ok with it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Besides being almost unintelligible, this post is ridiculous. Who are you to call such a fantastic scholar "unbiblical." Whoops, sorry, "non bilical?"



He's the world's leading evangelical scholar. Any evangelical who doesn't know him must not know much about biblical scholarship.

Careful your idolatry is showing.

 

[thomas15]

According to at least a couple in this forum Wright has much more of the Holy Ghost than anyone else. We should all bow at his feet and never question what he says. His words are always directly inspired by God.

On a Baptist only forum I might add.

 

[Greektim]

I provided the link for the purpose of further information. I expected that you in particular would react with disdain but the fact is this individual is a part of an institution that places a large emphasis on secular thinking. You don't like this but it is the truth. How often here on the BB do we see character assinations of dead theologians (unable to offer any explanations) of Scofield or Darby to discredit their theology? Fair game you say. But the living breathing and exhaulted N.T. Wright gets a pass for some unknown reason for basically doing and saying nothing about the rapid moral decline of his denomination.

I ask the question again, where is the integrity of this individual? An arguement could be made that in Wrights thinking the institution is more important than the divine revelation.

This post makes it clear that you have read zero of his books or scholarly journals. He has mentioned his unhappiness with the direction of his denomination. And AGAIN, I don't endorse everything he says or teaches. If I did, I would not be baptistic.

But when it comes to research and NT research in particular (that is my chosen field of study), he is arguably the best in that field. And so I value his insights into NT studies such as the quest for the historical Jesus or even 2nd temple literature and Judaism and how it affects NT interpretation. He views Scripture and its metanarrative much in the same way as I do, putting a great emphasis on the story of Scripture rather than systematizing every doctrine.

He has great philosophical understandings of the influence of modernity and post-enlightenment thinking that has shaped much of modern evangelical theology (dealing w/ questions by critics and offering answers from Scripture that the Bible never meant to pose or answer). He sees the benefits and challenges of post-modernity and uses it to his advantage for proffering "the bigger picture" scenarios.

 

[Greektim]

According to at least a couple in this forum Wright has much more of the Holy Ghost than anyone else. We should all bow at his feet and never question what he says. His words are always directly inspired by God.

:BangHead: Good grief :tonofbricks:

My problem w/ most of you guys who bash Wright is that it is not b/c you have read him and thus can offer a fair treatment of his views and then disagree. You just don't like him b/c of his denominational direction, his supposed view of Scripture (spouted and unfounded), his apparent heresy w/ justification (grouse overstatement), and etc. This is typical fundamentalism at its worse. "He disagrees w/ me, therefore he must be wrong. And anyone who supports him is clearly bowing down at his feet and not questioning what he says."

I guess I'm used to academic dialogue where people can interact reasonably and intelligently. This is also why I have called fundamentalism an unacademic result of modernity.

Let me be clear... Wright has flaws in his theology and praxis in my view. But those are minor and almost inconsequential to the positives he brings to the field. They far outweigh any shortcoming I see in him.

And let me be even more clearer... when a thinker arises like that of Wright in the baptist camp, I will resonate with him as well!!! BTW... there are many baptists who see things similar to Wright, and I do read them as well. But you guys don't know them or read them b/c... well, I won't say why you don't read them. Let's just say you don't/won't read them and leave it at that. Wright and his views are not alone. They are all throughout baptist theologies (distinct from baptistic theology or that theology that distinguishes baptists).

 

[TadQueasy]

Extremely well put, Tim. Growing up in a fundamentalist church I have seen this stuff for years.

 

[Revmitchell]

:BangHead: Good grief :tonofbricks:

My problem w/ most of you guys who bash Wright is that it is not b/c you have read him and thus can offer a fair treatment of his views and then disagree. You just don't like him b/c of his denominational direction, his supposed view of Scripture (spouted and unfounded), his apparent heresy w/ justification (grouse overstatement), and etc. This is typical fundamentalism at its worse. "He disagrees w/ me, therefore he must be wrong. And anyone who supports him is clearly bowing down at his feet and not questioning what he says."

I guess I'm used to academic dialogue where people can interact reasonably and intelligently. This is also why I have called fundamentalism an unacademic result of modernity.

Let me be clear... Wright has flaws in his theology and praxis in my view. But those are minor and almost inconsequential to the positives he brings to the field. They far outweigh any shortcoming I see in him.

And let me be even more clearer... when a thinker arises like that of Wright in the baptist camp, I will resonate with him as well!!! BTW... there are many baptists who see things similar to Wright, and I do read them as well. But you guys don't know them or read them b/c... well, I won't say why you don't read them. Let's just say you don't/won't read them and leave it at that. Wright and his views are not alone. They are all throughout baptist theologies (distinct from baptistic theology or that theology that distinguishes baptists).

There has been nothing academic in the several posts I have seen defending Wright. Daring someone to question him is far from academic. So let's try a little honesty here.

 

[TadQueasy]

Honesty is always good. For the sake of honesty, what books have your read by Wright that has led you to your conclusions about him?