And All God’s People Said, “Wut?”

Wilson’s blog post illustrates what I have been saying about Evangelicalism in my article at Proclaim & Defend:

http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2015/04/10/scholarship-separation-and-ets-1/

We all have our differences with Wilson, but you have to admit, he can write a blog!

I received the book yesterday, read Wright’s contribution, was suitably appalled, and have come here to tell you about it.

Not to rain on his parade, but…why did he feel the need to write this post?

Is anyone out there really shocked that NT Wright has not only gone off the rails, but has taken the rails with him and is working on digging up the track bed as well?
Is there nothing else going on in the world that Dr. Wilson had to ‘come here to tell you about’ how ‘suitably appalled’ he was?

I’m just not following him here. I don’t read NT Wright because I expect him to regurgitate theological liberalism. That’s who he is and that’s what he does. So I’m not really sure why Wilson feels the need to share with us just how badly he’s flaming out. This would be like P&D running an article on the shocking fact that water is wet, in my opinion, or that Fuller Theological Seminary has liberalism in it. It’s not news nor is it ‘shocking’. It’s another liberal defending his liberalism and his redefinition of God to suit what he wants. People all over the world do that every day.

Am I the only one who feels this way? For all the sturm un drang on Mark Driscoll, at least I knew that there were a lot of Christians that were following or reading or watching Driscoll, so there was a point to talking about his mess. But I doubt highly that anyone in our churches is reading NT Wright.

[Jay]

Is there nothing else going on in the world that Dr. Wilson had to ‘come here to tell you about’ how ‘suitably appalled’ he was?

Is there nothing else going on in Jay’s world that he had to take to SI and tell us how unimportant it is for Wilson to write?

I was entertained. Good enough reason for me.

Jay,

It’s Mr. Wilson, not Dr. ;-)

I suspect he feels the need because N.T. Wright is very good on things like the Resurrection, brilliant even, so people read him, and not just liberal evangelicals. A good many conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists read Wright (and do rithmitic, ha). I’ve watched Wright’s lectures on that subject and learned a great deal about how to answer objections to the resurrection from secular people.

Different pastors have different flocks and feel the need to call out different false teachings at different times and ways.

BTW, you should all read Doug’s novel “Evangellyfish.” I’ve read it three times and it’s fantastic writing, storytelling and is scathing against pop evangelicalism. Really if you didn’t know when it was written, you’d think it was about Mark Driscoll’s demise, but it was written a few years before.

Someone commented that Wright had not written 60 odd books but that he had written 1 book 60 times. He does repeat himself much.

I think Wright needs interacting with by others because he is writing both technical and popular works and is ‘out there’. Christians are going to read this scholar and be wowed by his great communication and confident style along with his brilliance and historical acuity.

One problem that needs pointing out concerning Wright is that he locates much in Jewish History. I do not believe that is how God’s disclosure works. I tend to separate Jewish History from ‘revealed history’. I see Jesus’ incarnation in the context of the scriptures not in the wider context of historical Jewish existence. Its not about humanity, its God’s incursion to redeem it.

I think it was Dan Wallace who said recently that one’s reading the bible enables a lot of insight on commentaries. Walk with God and read His word, then read the specialists.

[WallyMorris]

Wilson’s blog post illustrates what I have been saying about Evangelicalism in my article at Proclaim & Defend:

http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2015/04/10/scholarship-separation-and-ets-1/

How does N T Wright classify as an Evangelical? Sounds like new-liberalism to me! Is N T Wright a member of ETS?

Many Evangelicals would and do call Wright an Evangelical. The definition is so broad and “plastic” that you almost have to be an atheist to not be Evangelical.

Some try to make Bonhoeffer an Evangelical, which shows how “plastic” the term is.

I don’t think Wright is an ETS member. You have to be a member to see the membership list. One way I have found out who is a member is to go to the person’s academic website and see if he lists ETS membership or to email and ask.

His faculty page at the University of St. Andrews lists several academic memberships, but not ETS.

your linked article was critical of fundamentalists being members of ETS. And I was not / am not clear about your use of the Proclaim and Defend article with regard to the N T Wright link

The connection/interest is that many Evangelicals refer to Wright as an Evangelical, and part of my article discusses the fluid/plastic definitions of what Evangelical is. More than a few ETS members would not have any problem with Wright joining ETS. Some in upper ETS leadership even want Gundry reinstated into ETS. The problems in ETS run very deep, reflecting the problems in Evangelicalism.

Love his writing, and the picture with the caption “Adam and Eve finding out they get to be people” made me LLOL (Literally Laugh Out Loud).

Enjoyed. And regarding “Doctor”, yes, no earned doctorate—all of us fundamentalists ought to be observing the difference between an earned doctorate and an honorary or meaningless one (e.g. Dr. Dino’s “doctorate” from a diploma mill), but it’s worth noting that the Italian root word simply means “teacher”, which Wilson emphatically is. You could call him “Rabbi” for the same reason, really, ….except for that reality that Christ warns us about promiscuously using the title.

The same logic also applies, I guess, to calling someone “Dr.”, eh?

Though I disagree with both at several points, at least they attempt to to treat the text in an understandable way. What I mean is they are prominent scholars and have reputations within scholarly communities and they are publishing. They are out there digging deeper than you or I. They are probably exploring the bounds of theological possibilities with the tools at their disposal. I have already stated that I disagree with them at points, but the are transparent and publish. They at least venture to present a coherent whole and take a stand. Wright will also debate top theologians on what he has written. He does this all the time, he has guts and is scholarly.

Not so Doug Wilson. Sit back and take pot shots, snide remarks and innuendo. In my own opinion, Wilson is far more slippery than Wright.

Alex, that is just absurd. Someone who points out the ridiculous nature of the attack on the historicity of Adam and Eve is more slippery that the person who actually denies the historicity of Adam and Eve?

I don’t care who Wright debates or how many books or journal articles he has written. When you become so intellectual that you deny the clear teachings of Scripture, you are puffed up with (so-called) knowledge.

Alec, Wright has made a couple of howlers in his book which I think might belie the contention that he’s consistently a great scholar—the idea that taking Genesis literally makes one somehow a gnostic (the NT gnostics were of course doing the opposite of what Wright claims—they were denying the physical reality of Christ. YECs, on the other hand, argue for the physical reality of Creation…..really bad move on Wright’s part here ). Same thing with arguing that it’s a new discovery that Jews thought the Temple was central to their religion—I would hope that this would have come as no surprise to any first-time reader of the books of Ezra or Nehemiah.

Now I will agree that WIlson can be slippery, and that he can throw bombs around. Not what he’s doing now; he’s just pointing out the bombs that Wright has himself thrown.