Wright not Right: On the Dangers of Getting Too Cozy with False Teachers
Brothers Bayly sound a most approrpriate note of caution about Bishop Wright:
Evangelicals tend to go all woozy when they hear a British accent,
especially in the pulpit. No doubt it’s part of the inferiority complex
country cousins face when they meet their city cousin.
This goes a long way to explaining the lack of critical capacity
demonstrated by Bishop N. T. Wright’s fans. Overawed by the Bishop’s
learning and vocabulary, the accent pushes it over the top and all
things Wright are right.
Well, I envy the British accent as much as the next guy, but I still
think we should keep our heads screwed on squarely when it comes to men
like Stott, Wenham, Packer, and Wright. Stott’s an annihilationist (or
universalist depending upon whose testimony you accept); Packer long
ago proved he’s a better theologican than churchman, opposing Martyn
Lloyd-Jones precisely at the point of Lloyd-Jones greatest
wisdom—namely his warning of the coming train wreck in the Anglican
communion; and Wenham’s also gone loosey-goosey on the doctrine of the
last things, particularly the doctrine of hell.
Bishop Wright? Well, among other things, Wright’s a feminist
advocate of women holding office in the church, despite Scripture’s
clear command that they not do so; he’s an equivocator on the
consecration of sodomitic bishops in the Anglican communion; and much
of his biblical and theological writing builds the case for
rapprochement with Rome.
Now we read
that Bishop Wright’s opposed to the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ
being a defining doctrine of Christian faith. Wright says…