An Answer to Bishop Wright, Postmodernist

This is rubbish that gives the Internet and the "new media" a bad name. Perhaps this guy should have researched more about N. T. Wright and his beliefs before "responding."

 

Come on man, let's discuss beyond a cut and paste? Are you serious?

When actually read Wright's work we easily recognize that he neither postmodernism nor deconstructing Christianity. That is a misnomer. Also, what is defined as postmodernism isn't postmodernism.

Here's the thing, postmodernism isn't any more or less a friend to Christianity than modernism. The epistemological constructs between the two, and pre-modernism, are different...but offer opportunities and threats to Christianity at all levels.

Anyhoo, Wright is not a postmodernist. Take some time, read some of his stuff, and come back once you've taken your own word for it and not someone else's word.

 

I don't know if Wright is a postmodern or not, but I do know that he is wrong on the doctrine of justification.

 

I want to more about what Wright means by the word "fundamentalism" before I choose sides on this. The only thing I know about him is that he teaches some unorthodox or even heretical form of justification, as Andy alluded to. I think he adds works to it.

 

I agree, here.

Ed

 

I assure you that I am not exactly the President of the local N. T. Wright fan club, but rather than just making this accusation, how about backing it up with examples?

Ed

 

Preachinjesus,

1. I would have to agree with you on this one.

2. After reading the excerpt of NT Wright and then the response, this is what I discovered: the charge of Wright's deconstructionism is coming from the responder.

3. Bishop Wright has raised some important issues, and it's all about epistemological constructs--how we do church in whatever age we live in?

4. Let's not mislead ourselves in thinking that our brand of Christianity is all there is and all there needs to be.

5. Wright is right in raising these issues.

6. My only beef with Wright is on the New Perspective on Paul.

 

that's not deconstruction

 

I did read this, but would suggest that this is "cherry picking" at best by the person who did this article.

Five sentences in a "'photo-op' interview" simply do not show enough of what Wright has said or written, especially given the volume of work that he has done, with probably two chapters in his next book being written just while we are discussing this in this thread. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

"Cherry picking at best," well put.

I've read several of Wright's works and Wright is something like of a gadfly, stirring the steed of Christianity into action, to borrow words from Plato's Apology of Socrates.

 

There's a lot of valid criticism to be laid at the feet of fundamentalism and fundamentalists, but I don't mind defending fundamental doctrines. In the extract you posted, it looks to me like Wright is taking advantage of abuses of authority to water down our view of Biblical authority. I would wave the caution flag on this guy based on what we've seen so far.

 

I'll also add that N. T. Wright could probably not limit his answer to five sentences, were you to ask him "What is the temperature?", if he were staring at a thermometer! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Wright needs to be evaluated on his larger, theological writings. Dr. John Piper did just that in His the Future of Justification: A Response to NT Wright.

I read this work of Dr. Piper as well as the works of Dr. Wright, which are cited in Piper's work.

 

ANGLICAN BISHOP SAYS CHRISTIANS DON’T GO TO HEAVEN WHEN THEY DIE (Friday Church News Notes, February 15, 2008, www.wayoflife.org [email protected], 866-295-4143) - N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham, says that Christians do not go to heaven when they die and but are asleep in God and inactive. In an interview with Time magazine he said: “In the Bible we are told that you die, and enter an intermediate state. St. Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet. … At no point do the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels say, ‘Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven.’ … the period after death is a period when we are in God’s presence but not active in our own bodies” (“Christians Wrong about Heaven, Says Bishop,” Time, Feb. 7, 2008). In fact, the Bible says the believer’s conversation or citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). Paul said that death is to “depart and be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23) and “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8), and he was not talking about sleeping. In Revelation 5 we see the souls of the martyrs worshipping in heaven before the throne of God and wearing white robes (Revelation 5:9-11). James says it is the body that sleeps at death, while the spirit departs (James 2:26). After their decease, Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and conversed with Him (Matthew 17:3). We don’t know what type of body the saints have in the intermediate stage, but it is some kind of body (though not the final resurrection body) and they are not sleeping in any sense. N.T. Wright is supposed to be an evangelical, but he is sitting in the seat of the one of the most notorious liberals of all time. David Jenkins, former bishop of Durham, denied practically every tenet of the Christian faith, including Christ’s virgin birth. Jenkins said that Christians “don’t have to believe in miracles to believe in God” and he described the resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones.” Two days after Jenkins’ installation as bishop lightening hit his cathedral and set it afire.

ANGLICAN BISHOP SAYS CHRISTIANS DON’T GO TO HEAVEN WHEN THEY DIE

 

Linda, this is more rubbish. Wright heartily defends a conscious intermediate state and even uses the phrase "life, after life after death" to speak of resurrection. The magazine uses that catchy title because Wright is trying to correct the eschatology of some Christians by linking John 14 with the intermediate state and showing how Christ making all things new will happen on earth, the new refined earth of Revelation. This is neither unbiblical or heterodox, but in my opinion sound eschatology.

If you read Wright's book Surprised by Hope you would see his actual views instead of more mistaken Internet snippets.