Monday, 7 June 2010

Wright gets whacked by Ocker Pastor

His bishopness, the most 'whatever' Tom Wright, has had his critics, including blogdom's late, great N.T. Wrong (and considering the previous post, we'll have to add Bob Price.) Now Australian Lutheran pastor Mark Henderson has joined the fray, accusing the doyen of Anglogelicanism of completely misreading (and misrepresenting) Luther on law and grace.

Henderson seems to be an interesting character himself, an Anglican by upbringing who subsequently upgraded from the Thirty-Nine Articles to the Augsburg Confession. Well, who could argue that that isn't a move in the right direction, even if Henderson seems to favour the sectarian form of Lutheranism promoted by the Missouri Synod.

As for Henderson's protestations on Luther, I'm giving him a 7.5 out of ten. After all Wright, a victim of his own Calvinist tendencies, can be pedantic himself when apologetics demand it, and what's sauce for the goose...


  1. Out of a comprehension scale of 10, I'm averaging a 3.5 on this...My fault, not yours, Gavin.

    In all seriousness, though, why is this Wright fellow even on the Anglican radar? Or anyone's radar, for that matter? I was under the impression Rowan Williams was the Anglican pope....

    " Anglican by upbringing who subsequently upgraded from the Thirty-Nine Articles to the Augsburg Confession."

    Just let me rifle through my Christian-to-English dictionary here: Oy....Wiki is spectacularly unhelpful....

    How is Henderson "upgrading", by subscribing to (Believing in?) a document meant to prove the Germanic peoples were being properly cowed under by the Roman Catholic Church? And what does that have to do with Lutherans?

    Also, Henderson is claiming in his post Wright grew up a Lutheran, when the quote he excerpts, states Wright was raised both Anglican and Lutheran! (Can they even do that?)

    So Wright is advocating Calvinism, that's that "special elect" thing, I know that's bad, but why are people listening to him again?

    "If the law were physical, then it could be satisfied by works, but since it is spiritual, no one can satisfy it unless everything he does springs from the depths of the heart. But no one can give such a heart except the Spirit of God, who makes the person be like the law, so that he actually conceives a heartfelt longing for the law and henceforward does everything, not through fear or coercion, but from a free heart." (Henderson quoting Wright.)

    Eh? My albeit-unreligious Anglican family members have NOT taken to keeping the Sabbath or eating clean foods only, thank you; is this really what Wright is suggesting, or is this what Henderson thinks he's suggesting?

    And since when does a Protestant priest get away with preaching Messianic Judaism??

    "what he was hearing from evangelical Anglican pulpits as a young man was not Lutheranism at all, but antinomianism,"

    I really REALLY don't think that word means what Henderson thinks it means....Isn't this what the church was accused of being? Also the main reason we were not considered to be Christians (which we weren't), at least not by actual Christians....So what does that mean, that Henderson is accusing the Anglicans of not being "true Christians"?

    Yeah, where have I heard that before, it's got this strange familiar ring to it, but I just can't put my finger on it....

    "Wright is probably the single most influential 'evangelical' theologian writing today..."


  2. Some words can be used as both nouns and adjectives. Wright uses 'Lutheran' as an adjective that qualifies his (noun) Anglicanism. You can be a high-church Anglican, an evangelical Anglican, and even (shudder) a Sydney Anglican. Like you I'd never seen the word Lutheran used in this way before: seems a bit of an oxymoron really

  3. Yeah, oxymoron ain't the half of it. LOL!

    (BTW are the "Thirty-Nine Articles" anything like the "Nineteen Revealed Truths"? I'm thinking yes....)