My fellow PCA minister, Lane Keister, thinks there was something wrong with Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church hosting a conference with Richard Gaffin and N. T. Wright.
The reason is these stealth Bible conferences, where their teaching tries to get under the radar screen of “teaching.” I’m not talking about how visible the conference was (obviously). Rather, I’m talking about a forum where new ideas are being discussed; a forum there that is not accountable to any church body. Since they are not accountable, they can invite speakers like N.T. Wright to come and speak at their conference. And presbytery cannot do anything about that, except after the fact, and based on transcripts of something where the damage has already been done.
I think Lane needs to choose another example. If there was anything wrong with this conference why did Gaffin agree? What makes a conference like this “under the radar screen.” And what of the PCA pastors and professors from Covenant Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Westminster Theological Seminary, who all went and were edified by both men?
The good news is that you can still purchase the CD of Wright’s first lecture and DVD’s of the rest. In fact, Lane has inspired me to listen to them while I ‘m working today. They were extraordinarily good.
Stealth?
These critics are insane. You know where I first saw N T Wright? On the History Channel! He was telling that world that the Gospels are true.
I immediately alerted my presbytery.
A few months ago, I purchased the lectures for this conference. They are excellent.
Obviously the complaint here must be the unfair imbalance between the two participants. I mean both guys are “Reverend Doctors,” but then Wright goes and sticks “Right” in front of his title. How prejudicial is that? Gaffin never stood a chance.
Mark,
1. I thought that the Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference was hosted by the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. If so, then the conference was “accountable to a church body”.
2. If the session of AAPC was not responsible for putting on this conference, are we to conclude that no theological discussions should ever take place other than at church sanctioned events? Quick, close down almost all of the Reformed seminaries in the U.S. (Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster, WSC, and Mid-America are all parachurch organizations).
3. What could possibly make the critics of Wright happy? The conference was not titled: “Why we should all embrace Wright’s version of the New Perspective on Paul”. It was a discussion with two of the most highly regarded NT scholars in the world. Isn’t a free discussion of Scripture one of the best ways to ensure that we are together growing in the knowledge of the truth? If we are afraid to freely discuss what the text of Scripture actually says – then are we trusting God’s word or our tradition(s)?
David
“Rather, I’m talking about a forum where new ideas are being discussed; a forum there that is not accountable to any church body.”
So what about all the parachuch conferences where PCA ministers share the stage with non-Presbyterians? Is he going after ministers who have spoken at Banner of Truth, Ligonier, etc. conferences? What sort of accountability do they have?
The traditionalists instincts about the restriction of study, discussion, and teaching is so like that of the mediaval Roman Catholic response to the reformers its scary.
Weston is right on with the RC connection. I’ve been dialoguing both with TRs and RCs for about a year and they both operate with the same rhetoric and tactics. They both appeal to tradition and magisterium authority.
Of course, the Reformed will always lose that battle, because believe it or not there was a time before the 15th century, and things were *different*. gasp. sigh. ah.
“We believe that the proper place for theological development/inquiry of this nature is in the courts of the Church and not through the internet or in the pews.” From Louisiana Presbytery’s report on FV, available here: http://www.louisianapresbytery.com/AAT-FV_final.htm