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…
Continue
reading "Bishop N. T. Wright: good Christians can deny Christ’s resurrection…"


In fact, Wright´s comments to the newspaper are not muddled in the least. His point is quite clear: While N.T. Wright believes that belief in the bodily Resurrection of Christ is “important”, he will not exclude people who reject this doctrine from Christian fellowship. He does not make a special case for Marcus Borg; rather he holds up Borg as an example of someone who “passionately loves Jesus” while denying a bodily Resurrection.
Even if these remarks were a total fabrication, there has been plenty of time for N.T. Wright to issue a disavowal. But in truth, many Anglican/Episcopalian priests hold views on the Resurrection that are similar to either Wright´s or Borg´s.
The most remarkable aspect of this story is not what it says about N.T. Wright or the Church of England. Rather, it´s the response of non-Anglican “evangelicals” who might be assumed to know better. The “buzz” in the blogosphere is mostly being generated by “evangelicals” defending Wright against ··any·· criticism.
My theory is that Wright provides a role model for “post-modern” evangelicals who want to appear very “spiritual”, earnest, passionate, and committed to Scripture while adopting the ideology of inclusivism that drives much of Wright´s thinking.