Well, I guess I'll give a short review of the AAPC Pastor's Conference. I'm sure my report will be found wanting by those wanting to either find something wrong with Wright or wanting him to vindicate their own views. In fact, as far as the theological stuff, I'll just avoid talking about it. I didn't really learn anything new theologically from Gaffin or Wright, but I learned a lot about who they are.
A group of about 15 of us took Wright to lunch on Tuesday. He was sandwiched between Jon Amos and me, and we were outside, and it was hard to hear (I think Jon and I were about 2 of 4 people that could!), so I apologize to you for picking that place if you were one of those people who couldn't hear.
One of the first things we talked about was the Windsor Report and the future of conservative Anglicanism. I was surprised to hear Wright say that he thought that if the primates did not act decisively next month, there would be a lot of people that would leave the Anglican Communion. He seemed to think that the primates would take care of the homosexual bishop fiasco soon. That was encouraging (Sorry, if this isn't coming out clearly...I have a lot on my mind).
We also asked him about the AMiA and how the Windsor Report handled it. Wright made it very clear that his interpretation of the report was that it was not at all coming down on the AMiA as hard as it had come down on the ECUSA. That too was encouraging. He basically said the American Anglican church is in a mess and he wasn't sure how it was going to play out, but that their goal is for it to clean up as quickly and nicely as possible. Whether that means endorsing the AMiA or trying to do something else, he didn't know.
One thing I really enjoyed about Bishop Wright (I asked him what his proper title was, and he told me I could call him "My Lord" heh) is that you can just tell that the man has a love for Jesus and for the faith. Somehow we got to talking about WWJD bracelets, and Wright mentioned a few years ago how some profs at Regent were concerned that some of their kids were trying to answer this WWJD question because we really shouldn't do exactly what Jesus did...He had a specific call as the Messiah. Wright's reply was that he wished with all his heart that young folk in England would give a rip about what Jesus would do. Anything that brings someone closer to Christ can be a useful tool.
See, this is where I really have to agree with Wright and part ways with someone of the Wilsonian serrated edge criticisms of modern evangelicalism. It's not that I don't agree with Wilson, but I think the answer is slowly leading those Christians into maturity, not harshly rebuking them and satirizing their positions.
Another thing I like about Wright is his willingness to accept postmodern "accomodations." He seems to have a very good grasp on what is going on and he's willing to talk in those categories. I appreciated his answer when he was asked about inerrancy and infallibility because it's the same I've given as well as the same answer I've been written of on. Those are American modernist categories and they miss the point. We need to think Hebraicly; I'm sorry if that looks like postmodern Christian accomodationism.
Oh, and I just noticed that Wilson posted something else on postmodernism. He specified that the pomo-ers he was attacking were the ones claiming no metanarratives, etc...and if he's attacking that, fine. I'd be interested is seeing what he does with some of those that are not quite like that.
Posted by Rick at January 6, 2005 01:02 PMRick-
Would you please elaborate on what you mean those post-modernists who are not "claiming no metanarratives, etc." sometime when you can.
thanks
Posted by: The Native Tourist on January 6, 2005 02:18 PMThere seems to be a lot of equivocation about metanarratives in general. Metanarratives, in the sense that Lyotard used this word, may be denied by postmodernists, but this does not mean that postmodernists cannot self-consciously hold to metanarratives, provided 'metanarrative' is not understood in its Lyotardian sense. It seems to me that most people who talk of metanarratives are not employing the word in the same way as Lyotard did.
Posted by: Al on January 6, 2005 03:01 PMThanks for this Rick.
I got to see him here in Boise 2 Easters ago and talk to him a bit. I had the same impression: a guy who is very down to earth, serious about God and mission, and so darn disciplined. He was in the process of being elevated to Bishop at that time and was talking about the "enthronement" at Durham, how the throne had been deliberately made to be higher than the Pope's, and how pretentious the whole ceremony was.
A class act.
Al already said what I was going to say. Within the context of a lot of postmodern thinking, a very specific sort of narrative is meant by "metanarrative"--not just any old big narrative. After all, postmodernism is itself a way of narrating "the modern."
Guys like Grenz and Franke (who I suspect Wilson includes among the accomodationists) are really quite clear that they intend "metanarrative" in the Lyotardian sense and don't at all deny the kind of role for the biblica narrative that Wilson wants to have.
Thanks for the reviews of the conference. I heard it was fantastic, and specifically that Wright was amazing. I look forward to hearing him speak one day. Can you mention what he said about inerrancy and infallibility?
I also liked the anecote about WWJD bracelets.
Posted by: scott cunningham on January 7, 2005 03:24 PMRight.
Posted by: Rick on January 7, 2005 05:55 PMWright was asked about innerancy during the final Q&A. I'm going from memory here, but he pretty much said that the term innerancy was tied up with a lot of philosophical baggage so that he wanted to avoid the term altogether. Prof. Gaffin asked him a more rfined version along the lines of "do you believe the Bible is true in what it affirms", but Wright still declined to go with it. He made it clear, both at this point and especially in his opening lecture that he holds the entire text of scripture in the highest regard, and has said elsewhere that he agrees with the sort of sentiment that the innerancy proponents argue for.
Posted by: Paul Baxter on January 8, 2005 01:58 PMI'll add just a little to the comments about Wright and inerrancy: During that last Q&A to which the other Paul B. refers, Wright said that Scripture was "God-breathed," and he made it clear that if he and the Scriptures didn't agree, the problem would lie in him, not in the Scriptures.
Posted by: Paul Buckley on January 9, 2005 07:19 PMI meant to add, too, that Wright mentioned a book he has written to be released in the spring (at least in the UK): "Scripture and the Authority of God." It's already listed at Amazon UK.
Posted by: Paul Buckley on January 9, 2005 08:39 PM