« Bam! | Main | It's Wabbit Season! »

March 24, 2006

Comments

Andrew Richardson

Hi Bret, great post.

I have one question: Why do you say that NT Wright is non-Reformed? He seems to me to be robustly reformed. Does it have to do with the Uppercase "R"eformed?

Oops, I guess that's two questions.

Cheers.

Boneman

If by "Reformed," you mean "Protestant," then yes, NTW is "Reformed." If by "Reformed" you mean someone who subscribes to the system of doctrine outlined in classic Reformed confessions... I don't think he does (explicitly).

Don't get me wrong - I think if we pressed him hard on any number of core issues, he would sound Reformed. However, at the end of the day, I don't think he touts himself as a Reformed guy. Know what I mean?

Andrew Richardson

Yes, I think I do. Perhaps I would fall into the same category as Wright.

Garrett was exploring (as you know) the idea of being post-Reformed on his blog, which rubbed me the wrong way because if you look at his theology, it is obviously reformed (although I understand what he was getting at).

When I read Wright, and sum up what he is saying (all that I have read, anyway), it adds up to a convenantal theology that seems in some ways more reformed than even the PCA.

So I would say that post-Reformed Garrett is indeed reformed, and non-Reformed Wright is indeed reformed.

All that is neither here nor there though I guess, if your point in this post is that Wright himself does not consider himself Reformed.

Thanks for the clarification, and please forgive my ignorance.

I appreciate your wise thoughts.

Cheers

Boneman

No need to apologize - it's a good question. The fact is, while I have read a half dozen NTW books, I don't know if he would claim the "Reformed" moniker or not. I just know he is Anglican!

I agree with you - a rose by any other name is still a rose. I don't like the fact that certain sectarian outposts on the fringes of institutional Reformedom have anointed themselves as the defenders of the Reformed faith. I don't like it at all, so I empathize much with Garrett's tongue-in-cheek "post-Reformedom." I'm still wrestling with what the way forward looks like.

Boneman

Anikisan

Hey Guys,

I hear you on labels. One thing to bear in mind about NTW is that, as an Anglican he is going to have peculiarly higher view of the nature, organization and rigidity of liturgy (of course John Stott looks like a plain-wrap Presby). Also, church government, though oblique, is an issue. The Reformed churches are Presbyterian in governance and the Episcopaleans, well Episcopalean. Beyond that he is a big camp kind of guy like Cranmer was.

Regarding "Post-Reformed" I was using it mainly for epistemological and practical reasons. I wonder if "Broadly Reformed" might work better so Andrew doesn't burst out of his undergarments from the pressure! : )

Andrew Richardson

Garrett,

Look, I'M NOT UNDER PRESSURE!! :)

Just a couple of thoughts (I'm adding to, not necessarily contradicted what has been said):

1. It seems that since the BCP is a product of Cranmer and the English Reformation, and is therefore reformed in nature, NTW's strict adherence to it would be further evidence that he is indeed reformed in a sense (the sense that matters!).

2. I was unaware that being reformed required that you have a certain brand of church polity. For example, there are many baptists who are congregationalist in their ecclesiology, yet who are labled (by themselves as well as others) Reformed Baptists. Why could this not also apply to Episcopaleans?

Further, I recently listened to one of NTW's lectures from the 2005 AA Pastor's Conference, where he spent the whole time advocating and fleshing out the solas of the reformation.

All that said, the fact remains that I have never heard right claim the "Reformed" moniker, and so I understand now, what I initially misunderstood in Boneman's post. But a rose by any other name...

The comments to this entry are closed.