UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:I wasn't aware that he had a poor reputation here. Indeed, the back cover of his New Testament translation contains an endorsement from this very website!
Do not try Tom Wright who has a very poor reputation here as you probably have found out.
quote:I think it totally depends on who you are asking. I've heard some very serious academics who decry NT Wright for writing populous drivel which has no relation to the texts he is discussing. The more evangelical/conservative tend to think he is the bees-knees.
Originally posted by Sipech:
Are there particular aspects to his work that shipmates have a problem with?
quote:Obviously in theology wherever you're placing yourself you're going to have a gob of people who don't agree with you, so I can certainly get that. And the fact that Wright tends to write both to academic and to mass market I suppose can be seen as a mark against him-- altho I tend to see it as a huge plus-- his ability to translate complex and nuanced concepts to laity as well as clergy/academia. He's a great communicator.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think it totally depends on who you are asking. I've heard some very serious academics who decry NT Wright for writing populous drivel which has no relation to the texts he is discussing. The more evangelical/conservative tend to think he is the bees-knees.
Originally posted by Sipech:
Are there particular aspects to his work that shipmates have a problem with?
quote:My understanding of his critics is that they believe he is twisting the texts to fit his theology and I've heard him described as intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree he's definitely appealing to the con-evo wing. But he's not just spouting the same tired old con-evo tripes either. He IS reframing conservative evangelical theology in a strikingly new way (at least from a non-Episcopal American evangelical pov). That's not something that happens every day in the con-evo world. So that in and of itself is quite noteworthy even if one ultimately disagrees with the reframing.
But then I am obviously a fan.
quote:The conservative end of evangelicalism is the one area where I thought he had most critics. His appeal certainly extends beyond his Anglicanism, into the wider church. Certainly in liberal evangelicalism I've heard him spoken of in positive terms. But the conservative end (e.g. John Piper) don't like his take on justification.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree he's definitely appealing to the con-evo wing.
quote:He may have got a good line in insults,
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I have never read his stuffed, although I have friends and acquaintances who love him, including one who went to St. Andrew's for his PhD, mostly to study under him.
My ignorance established, a letter that was published in the student newspaper at my Alma Mater after Wright was given an honorary degree might shed some light on the thinking of people who don't care for him. (The letter caused an annoyed reaction from the con-evo branch of TEC.)
[fixed link]
quote:But is Professor Paul Holloway a well known figure in his world?
"an under-funded Scottish university anxious to attract young full-fee-paying American Evangelical men questing for old-world cultural capital".
quote:Bit drastic. Should no-one study Homer, or the writings of the Emperor Julian or the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the writings of the Armana period?
Personally I'm not really convinced by the approach of these kinds of scholars (I can't really see the point in being a scholar of the religious text a religion you don't believe in) but then I don't really like the way NT Wright seems to attract groupies who sometimes seem to think he is the last word on certain topics.
quote:Dunno, probably just me. Some of the most vocal NT scholars are atheists, which always seemed weird to me. But as you say maybe it is only odd from my perspective.
Originally posted by Callan:
Bit drastic. Should no-one study Homer, or the writings of the Emperor Julian or the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the writings of the Armana period?
quote:This is very likely true, or at least would be if the orthodox spent any time listening to the critics. As it is, I don't think they do give any credence to them (partly, perhaps, because some of the ideas that the critics come up with are very much from left-field and hard to engage with. For example, there are a group of scholars who are propounding the idea that Jesus Christ never existed. Well, that's quite hard to argue against as an orthodox and believing scholar because this is basically taken on trust in a lot of ways.
And if your stricture applies solely to live religions then I would have thought scholars who are unbelievers will, if nothing else, keep the scholars who are believers on the straight and narrow. Otherwise, it would be like saying that only Marxists should study the works of Marx, only Liberals should study the works of J.S, Mill and only conservatives should study the works of Edmund Burke.
quote:Again, some scholars are saying he isn't worth reading because his beef is so distorted and disengaged with the text.
My impression of Wright, FWIW, is that he knows his stuff and that, understandably, Con-Evo's dislike his take on justification and the atonement and, equally understandably, liberal Anglicans dislike his views on a particular Neigh! Bang! issue. My own concern is that, in his popular work, he rather hedges between what he knows as a scholar and what his evangelical base believe. I'm not an unqualified admirer of the whole NT/ Tom Wright bill of goods but he is one of those authors who is worth reading, if only because your disagreements allow you to crystallise your own thoughts.
quote:Any chance of identifying who these people are, mr. c?
Again, some scholars are saying he isn't worth reading because his beef is so distorted and disengaged with the text.
quote:That is silly. IMO, there are orthodox positions that require, at the very least, some undignified mental gymnastics to maintain. But to tar all orthodox scholars as dishonest is in accurate.
Of course, some of these people believe that all orthodox scholars are intellectually dishonest
quote:Well, that's interesting because the author of that letters predecessor at your Alma Mater's School of Theology loved Tom Wright.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I have never read his stuffed, although I have friends and acquaintances who love him, including one who went to St. Andrew's for his PhD, mostly to study under him.
My ignorance established, a letter that was published in the student newspaper at my Alma Mater after Wright was given an honorary degree might shed some light on the thinking of people who don't care for him. (The letter caused an annoyed reaction from the con-evo branch of TEC.)
[fixed link]
quote:If by his world, you mean a certain mountaintop in Tennessee then yes. If by world you mean something else, then no he isn't. Holloway's letter is the typical tripe currently en vogue on college campuses in the US.
originally posted by Enoch:
But is Professor Paul Holloway a well known figure in his world?
quote:Well Robert Price immediately sprang to mind, although there are other scholars who are pretty scorching in their criticism about NT Wright.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Any chance of identifying who these people are, mr. c?
My understanding is much the same as Callan's - the conflation of con-evos with his fanboys is mildly entertaining, but a bit far out.
quote:Of course, I'm not arguing that Robert Price is in any way mainstream. But that's just an example of one NT scholar who doesn't rate NT Wright at all.
One could easily go on and on and on, even as Wright does, and because Wright does. What we have in this book is not a contribution to New Testament scholarship, any more than Creationist “Intelligent Design” screeds are contributions to biological science. Both alike are pseudo-scholarly attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of readers, most of whom will be happy enough for the sedation.
quote:Yes, I think it is a pretty silly position and seems to suggest that nobody who actually studied the New Testament - in a "professional" scholar kind of a way - would believe in Christian dogma and therefore the vast majority of Christian academics in the field are either deceiving themselves or deliberately deceiving others or possibly both.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is silly. IMO, there are orthodox positions that require, at the very least, some undignified mental gymnastics to maintain. But to tar all orthodox scholars as dishonest is in accurate.
quote:And honestly, Piper is ridiculously narrow in his approach. If you don't agree 110% with the particular form of hyper-Calvinist complimentarianism he ascribes to, then you are horrible, blasphemous minion of the underworld. Pretty much every contemporary theologian I enjoy has felt the flick of Piper's lash. But Mark Driscoll, sure he's just fine in Piper's book-- sexism, authoritarianism, dishonest manipulation-- that's all fine as long as you affirm the 5 Dortian essentials.
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:The conservative end of evangelicalism is the one area where I thought he had most critics. His appeal certainly extends beyond his Anglicanism, into the wider church. Certainly in liberal evangelicalism I've heard him spoken of in positive terms. But the conservative end (e.g. John Piper) don't like his take on justification.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would agree he's definitely appealing to the con-evo wing.
Though I don't suppose there are too many fans of Piper here.
quote:Yes, he's definitely reframing evangelicalism in new ways-- which imho is his greatest gifts. For those outside evangelicalism it might be more of a ho-hum, but for those of us inside the tent it can be a breath of fresh air-- if you'll allow it.
Originally posted by Sipech:
Similarly, the conservative end of anglo-catholicism aren't keen on his endorsement of ordaining women or the fact that he takes a both/and approach to atonement. i.e. He accepts substitution as well as Christus Victor as part of a more holistic take on the subject.
quote:We Anglicans do love our fallacy of the middle :/
Originally posted by balaam:
Too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals.
Sounds OK to me.
quote:This is certainly true, although some of the criticisms I've read of Wright (a) do not tend to have much visibility and (b) are very detailed point-by-point arguments of the assertions made in Wright's books.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Wright will have his critics because, well, all theologians have their critics. It's the stock in trade of the professional theologian that people who disagree with them will attack their methodology as a way of undermining their conclusions. Wright also gets attached because he's a successful author - there's plenty of professional jealousy in the academic world. And if you're a largely anonymous theologian and get published for attacking someone famous there's a chance your visibility might increase as a result.
quote:Well I'm not sure anyone is being fooled. The question was whether there are serious objections to NTW's scholarship, and clearly there are.
In other words, don't get fooled into thinking that arguments between theologians are just about the validity of their ideas. They are as much about personalities, profiles, and career prospects as in any other profession.
quote:Robert M Price has an interesting podcast, but OTOH he takes a mythicist view of the NT, so he is bound to critique anyone who doesn't. So it's one example, but not a particularly good example.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, I'm not arguing that Robert Price is in any way mainstream. But that's just an example of one NT scholar who doesn't rate NT Wright at all.
quote:No, I think the majority of their critiques would centre around how he understands substitution. I don't think many of them would have an objection to Christus Victor to being a valid approach to the atonement when alongside other approaches.
Originally posted by Sipech:
or the fact that he takes a both/and approach to atonement. i.e. He accepts substitution as well as Christus Victor as part of a more holistic take on the subject.
quote:Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No, I think the majority of their critiques would centre around how he understands substitution. I don't think many of them would have an objection to Christus Victor to being a valid approach to the atonement when alongside other approaches.
Originally posted by Sipech:
or the fact that he takes a both/and approach to atonement. i.e. He accepts substitution as well as Christus Victor as part of a more holistic take on the subject.
quote:Can you provide support for this assertion? From this book here https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B004774D0K (which I presume has Piper's imprimatur):
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution.
quote:As we all know, context is everything and Ricardus is right or perhaps that is Wright.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought the 'here' in the comment was referring to Sydney?
quote:Why is that then?
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
Evangeline and I are both in Sydney where he is regarded in a very poor light. The line quoted had nothing to do with his reputation on board here.
quote:This handy Christianity today interview does a good job of laying out the differences between Piper and NTW, the discussion of substitution v victory theory is on the 2nd page.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Can you provide support for this assertion? From this book here https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B004774D0K (which I presume has Piper's imprimatur):
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution.
"In this respect, Aulén's view was seriously inadequate. He displaced the motif of penal satisfaction with that of victory. But, as we have seen, in Scripture the satisfaction of divine justice, the forgiveness of our sins, and Christ’s defeat of Satan are not mutually exclusive but complementary. "
quote:I cannot read that as it is behind a paywall - it is probable that his presentation is skewed due to the specifics of dealing with one particular persons arguments.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This handy Christianity today interview does a good job of laying out the differences between Piper and NTW, the discussion of substitution v victory theory is on the 2nd page.
quote:Yes, I know what a festschrift is. However, that particular book is published by Crossway, and publicized on both the Gospel Coalition and the desiringgod websites. The section I quoted was from an essay by Sinclair Ferguson who has been invited by Piper to speak at his conferences, so I presume that Piper wouldn't object to his views.
Note that a festschrift is written by colleagues to honor an academic but not necessarily to agree with everything they say, and such would not necessarily have Piper's "imprimatur".
quote:
But on these points where Piper chooses to engage him – issues perhaps especially significant for the evangelical constituency – it is fairly clear to me that it is Wright who engages the text, for better or worse, and Piper who reads his tradition into it.
quote:This gets at the essence of traditionalism. Piper has picked his tradition (conservative Reformed) and has then made a career out of defending it, without seeming to give countenance to the possibility that it may contain errors.
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Some years ago (2007) Eddie Arthur quoted Doug Chaplin on the debate between NTW and John Piper regarding the atonement, the original blog post is no longer available, unfortunately. I don't think Chaplin has any particular axe to grind in the debate, so his comment is pertinent:
quote:
But on these points where Piper chooses to engage him – issues perhaps especially significant for the evangelical constituency – it is fairly clear to me that it is Wright who engages the text, for better or worse, and Piper who reads his tradition into it.
quote:Well, yes, it is summarizing Piper's book which is published (and subtitled) as "an answer" to NTW. Read the section on the pdf you linked under "gospel". Piper is clearly advocating for penal substitution, NTW for Christus victor. That difference is the whole point of Piper's book, and the whole point of the interview with Piper.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I cannot read that as it is behind a paywall - it is probable that his presentation is skewed due to the specifics of dealing with one particular persons arguments.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This handy Christianity today interview does a good job of laying out the differences between Piper and NTW, the discussion of substitution v victory theory is on the 2nd page.
Assuming that this is the same article http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/content/pdf/justification_june09.pdf I don't find anything that explicitly rules out Christus Victor in the way you suggest. The majority of the material there seems to be quotes from a book responding to NTW which could explain some of the emphasis.
quote:Yes, precisely-- I could not agree more. This in a nutshell is what I most appreciate about NTW and what I least appreciate about Piper.
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:This gets at the essence of traditionalism. Piper has picked his tradition (conservative Reformed) and has then made a career out of defending it, without seeming to give countenance to the possibility that it may contain errors....
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Some years ago (2007) Eddie Arthur quoted Doug Chaplin on the debate between NTW and John Piper regarding the atonement, the original blog post is no longer available, unfortunately. I don't think Chaplin has any particular axe to grind in the debate, so his comment is pertinent:
quote:
But on these points where Piper chooses to engage him – issues perhaps especially significant for the evangelical constituency – it is fairly clear to me that it is Wright who engages the text, for better or worse, and Piper who reads his tradition into it.
Where Wright has greater credibility (IMHO) is that he has picked his tradition (Anglicanism) but while being faithful to it, he does issue critiques from within, as well as giving observational critiques of other traditions. It's a healthy antitode to this kind of thinking.
quote:No. I don't think that segment (a summary of an excerpt from a book explicitly written as a response to NT Wright) constitutes evidence for your statement above. That Piper associates with, and promotes people who have views that includes Christus Victor is strong evidence to the contrary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper is clearly advocating for penal substitution, NTW for Christus victor. That difference is the whole point of Piper's book, and the whole point of the interview with Piper.
quote:The summaries are excellent, but the 'Pastor's speak' section under it is awful.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Assuming that this is the same article http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/content/pdf/justification_june09.pdf I don't find anything that explicitly rules out Christus Victor in the way you suggest.
quote:I don't like Wright's views on homosexuality and, limited though I am, dare to disagree with his exegesis. However, I'm not aware of his being a homophobe. (And I have no idea who is ex-boss is, or the guy who claims to be their boss.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
Wright is a homophobe. Like his ex-boss. And the guy who claims to be their boss. As for the East ... bless them.
quote:Again, the CT article is taken from an interview with Piper as well as the book. Yes, I haven't read the entire book but I've read enough-- and enough of Piper's other work-- to be very, very confident Piper is not advocating for Christus victor or any other atonement theory other than penal substitution. The fact that he has colleagues who believe otherwise is absolutely no evidence-- since this is a common debate among theologians, all theologians are going to have friends who advocate for Christus Victor. One of Piper's colleagues at Bethel Seminary is Open Theist Greg Boyd (shippies know I'm a fan)-- the sort of colleague (on the same faculty) who might be asked to contribute to such a book as the one you're citing. But Piper despite their close association, Piper is definitely not in agreement with Boyd-- he wrote a (different) whole book about how wrong Boyd is (far more scathing even than his rebuke of NTW) and pretty much called Boyd a minion of the Dark Overlord. So, no, the fact that Piper has colleagues who have a broader view of the atonement is no evidence that Piper does. Even the most cursory of reading of Piper's work will show you that.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No. I don't think that segment (a summary of an excerpt from a book explicitly written as a response to NT Wright) constitutes evidence for your statement above. That Piper associates with, and promotes people who have views that includes Christus Victor is strong evidence to the contrary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper is clearly advocating for penal substitution, NTW for Christus victor. That difference is the whole point of Piper's book, and the whole point of the interview with Piper.
quote:They are more than colleagues. I'm referring to groups which he has a very close association, and the case of the author that of piece someone Piper invites to speak at his Pastors Conference.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact that he has colleagues who believe otherwise is absolutely no evidence
quote:Actually no. This is far more theologically slanted than a standard festchrift would be as a look through the authors would tell you - as would the fact that it's published by Crossway.
the sort of colleague (on the same faculty) who might be asked to contribute to such a book as the one you're citing. But Piper despite their close association
quote:ISTM you are doing what Piper is said to do above - fitting your reading of the text to fit your opinion.
But, hey, if you choose to believe otherwise it's no skin off my nose.
quote:I'm really not-- I have no reason to do so. I have no default reason to place Piper in either camp. It doesn't effect my belief in Christus victor one way or another. I've read quite a bit of both Piper and NTW, their differences have been discussed in many, many academic forums as well as in the CT article I linked. So, if I'm wrong in my reading of what seems to me very, very clear statements on Piper's part, I'm certainly in good company. It would be odd that Piper has not taken it upon himself to correct CT or any of the multiple reviewers who have interpreted his position to be substitutionary-only.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:ISTM you are doing what Piper is said to do above - fitting your reading of the text to fit your opinion. [/QB]
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But, hey, if you choose to believe otherwise it's no skin off my nose.
quote:The most that can be said from the quote in the article you linked is that Piper thinks SA is the primary lens through which the atonement should be understood.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have no default reason to place Piper in either camp. It doesn't effect my belief in Christus victor one way or another. I've read quite a bit of both Piper and NTW, their differences have been discussed in many, many academic forums as well as in the CT article I linked.
quote:Any exclusion of non-heterosexual relationships is homophobic in that it is prejudicial and discriminatory. He's retired, so his last boss was the Archbishop of Canterbury. The guy who reckons he's their boss is the Pope. They are all de facto homophobes, trapped by failure of trajectory.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:I don't like Wright's views on homosexuality and, limited though I am, dare to disagree with his exegesis. However, I'm not aware of his being a homophobe. (And I have no idea who is ex-boss is, or the guy who claims to be their boss.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
Wright is a homophobe. Like his ex-boss. And the guy who claims to be their boss. As for the East ... bless them.
quote:Again, I find it odd that you rest the entire weight of your argument on the opinions of theologians that Piper may or may not hang out with, over and above Piper's actual words or the summaries of his words in reviews published in both pulp and peer-reviewed journals.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The most that can be said from the quote in the article you linked is that Piper thinks SA is the primary lens through which the atonement should be understood.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have no default reason to place Piper in either camp. It doesn't effect my belief in Christus victor one way or another. I've read quite a bit of both Piper and NTW, their differences have been discussed in many, many academic forums as well as in the CT article I linked.
What it doesn't provide evidence of is:
"Piper and other ultra-conservative evangelicals do indeed object to Christus victor and any other atonement image, no matter how biblical, other than penal substitution."
quote:Again, I'm still curious about what lies behind this argument for you? What is driving the vehemence? Is it important to you that Piper accept Christus victor because it is your own view, and somehow you need Piper to validate that? Or is it something else altogether that's driving the force of this for you? Again, just curious.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My understanding on Piper's view on atonement theories is that Abelardian exemplarism, Classical Ransom theory and Christus Victor are limited but can be useful if not taken too far, (and thus not, per se, heretical) but PSA is "what really happens", the objective reality upon which the whole Gospel rests.
quote:In which case, let's have a quotation from Piper himself rejecting Christus Victor (in context). As it is, I suspect Jolly Jape's summary is a more accurate summation.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
over and above Piper's actual words or the summaries of his words in reviews published in both pulp and peer-reviewed journals.
quote:Apparently you're more concerned about it than Piper himself, since Piper made no effort to correct the summary in the CT article or similar statements made in the many reviews of his book critiquing Wright's position.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:In which case, let's have a quotation from Piper himself rejecting Christus Victor (in context). As it is, I suspect Jolly Jape's summary is a more accurate summation.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
over and above Piper's actual words or the summaries of his words in reviews published in both pulp and peer-reviewed journals.
I think it is important to get his position right, because not doing so undermines criticism of his other positions. [I'm also not overly keen with the dismissing an argument based on an inaccurate summary of it].
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Piper himself has actually said. But as I said, I'm quite happy with Jolly Jape's somewhat more nuanced/ moderate summation.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Except what you've quoted Piper as actually saying doesn't constitute sufficient evidence of your initial assertion (which is all I was contesting).
quote:Wright is a NT scholar not a theologian
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Wright will have his critics because, well, all theologians have their critics. It's the stock in trade of the professional theologian that people who disagree with them will attack their methodology as a way of undermining their conclusions. Wright also gets attached because he's a successful author - there's plenty of professional jealousy in the academic world. And if you're a largely anonymous theologian and get published for attacking someone famous there's a chance your visibility might increase as a result.
In other words, don't get fooled into thinking that arguments between theologians are just about the validity of their ideas. They are as much about personalities, profiles, and career prospects as in any other profession.
quote:In time, he might. What I and others here have admired about NTW is his openness to new ideas, his willingness to consider perspectives outside his tradition. Many of us who support marriage equality can remember a time when we didn't. And for most of us, that's what instigated that transition-- having lots and lots of conversations that gradually opened up our thinking-- not all at once, but steadily over time. NTW is open to change, so change he might, on this or any other issue.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm sure JJ is right, in which case, with regard to PSA or any other atonement theory, so is Wright. Piper is a fundamentalist, a literalist, stuck in the Iron Age via C18th Massachusetts. Pity Wright can't bring the same postmodern, deconstructionist, enlightened, objective trajectory to marriage.
quote:Yes maybe. NT Scholars are also a subset of theologian. Look how many are in theology departments or faculties. NT Wright is at St Mary's, the theology faculty of the University of St Andrews. Sheffield's extinct Biblical Studies department was that precisely to distiguish what sort of theology was acceptable at the University. Oh the full title for his topic is New Testament Theology. Because it is normally discussed with respect to other theologies: Old Testament, Doctrinal, Contextual, Historical etc the word "Theology" is often dropped.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Wright is a NT scholar not a theologian
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Wright will have his critics because, well, all theologians have their critics. It's the stock in trade of the professional theologian that people who disagree with them will attack their methodology as a way of undermining their conclusions. Wright also gets attached because he's a successful author - there's plenty of professional jealousy in the academic world. And if you're a largely anonymous theologian and get published for attacking someone famous there's a chance your visibility might increase as a result.
In other words, don't get fooled into thinking that arguments between theologians are just about the validity of their ideas. They are as much about personalities, profiles, and career prospects as in any other profession.
quote:Tom Wright is not retired - he returned to academia and is a professor at St Andrew's University. The Pope is not the boss of any Anglican bishops. We had a big row about this a few years back and we declared independence.
[Wright is] retired, so his last boss was the Archbishop of Canterbury. The guy who reckons he's their boss is the Pope.
quote:So he's bishopping again? The Holy Dad, who walks in Peter's invisible Roman footprints with his keys in his pocket, surely WANTS to be their boss. Having partaken of high church and RC services I couldn't see the join. As they are united in warmongering, homophobia and Marianism as at St. Pancras for example (which I didn't notice during the RC services), we're independent how exactly? A bit looser on divorce and re-marriage AKA annulment?
Originally posted by Charles Read:
In reply to Martin60:
quote:Tom Wright is not retired - he returned to academia and is a professor at St Andrew's University. The Pope is not the boss of any Anglican bishops. We had a big row about this a few years back and we declared independence.
[Wright is] retired, so his last boss was the Archbishop of Canterbury. The guy who reckons he's their boss is the Pope.
quote:Martin, you're just trolling now. NT Wright has retired as Bishop of Durham, remains a Bishop for the purposes of ordinations and confirmations and other parts of a Bishop's sacramental ministry and is a working academic. Doubtless Pope Francis does think that he is in charge but, as far as the C of E is concerned he ain't, which given the retrograde views of some of his predecessors is no bad thing.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:So he's bishopping again? The Holy Dad, who walks in Peter's invisible Roman footprints with his keys in his pocket, surely WANTS to be their boss. Having partaken of high church and RC services I couldn't see the join. As they are united in warmongering, homophobia and Marianism as at St. Pancras for example (which I didn't notice during the RC services), we're independent how exactly? A bit looser on divorce and re-marriage AKA annulment?
Originally posted by Charles Read:
In reply to Martin60:
quote:Tom Wright is not retired - he returned to academia and is a professor at St Andrew's University. The Pope is not the boss of any Anglican bishops. We had a big row about this a few years back and we declared independence.
[Wright is] retired, so his last boss was the Archbishop of Canterbury. The guy who reckons he's their boss is the Pope.
quote:Ahem, Callan, accusations of trolling don't wash around here, irrespective of the degree of tongue-in-cheekness. Turn it down a notch.
Originally posted by Callan:
Martin, you're just trolling now.