I joined the Evangelical Theological Society earlier this year and have just returned from my first ETS annual meeting.  It was held in Atlanta from Wednesday until today (Friday).  The theme was “Justification” and the main attraction was a panel discussion with N.T. Wright, Tom Schreiner (Southern Seminary), and Frank Thielman (Beeson Divinity School) on justification and the “New Perspective on Paul.”

I originally joined ETS and planned on attending the meeting when, earlier in the year, it was announced that John Piper and N.T. Wright would be debating justification.  Shortly thereafter, Piper took an eight-month sabbatical and Schreiner was chosen as his successor.  I have been very much looking forward to this discussion, which took place this morning.  I was further encouraged by the involvement of Frank Thielman, a New Testament scholar who has done important work in Pauline studies (and who I was privileged to sit under in a DMin. seminar at Beeson about ten years ago).

Before I get to the panel discussion, let me share a few thoughts about some of the lectures I attended leading up to this morning.  The ETS annual meeting is essentially a smorgasbord of papers presented on a wide variety of subjects.  Attendees may choose to hear whatever papers they’d like (the difficulty is in the amazing number of choices you have).  Then, each day, all attendees are encouraged to attend the plenary sessions (this year’s sessions being led by Schreiner, Thielman, and Wright, respectively, and culminating in the panel discussion).

I had a tremendous time and was encouraged and challenged by the presentations I heard.  Danny Akin’s presentation on regenerate church membership was very well done (and the vigorous discussion-time challenge from a slightly irritated Presbyterian brother was actually mildly amusing).  Gregory Wills’ paper on the history of open communion among American Baptists was quite informative and interesting.  Though I ultimately disagree with Wills’ closed communion position (and engaged him a bit during the discussion time on the subject), I thought the paper was very well done and worth hearing.  Finally, Frank Thielman’s  plenary session from yesterday afternoon was, in my opinion, a masterpiece of careful, balanced, irenic scholarship.  Particularly illuminating was his first-century examples of the word “righteousness” on Roman coinage and how the usage of the word thereon can help nuance our understanding of Paul’s use of the word in, for instance, Romans 1:17.

N.T. Wright’s plenary address this morning, and the panel discussion following it, was utterly enthralling.  The debate on what Paul means by “the righteousness of God” and what the New Testament means by “justification” is, at times, a challenge to follow but is, in my opinion, worth the effort to do so.

N.T. Wright clearly wanted to seize the opportunity to push back against what he sees as some of the more absurd criticisms of him and his work.  Time and again he returned to the theme of, “I’ve been accused of…but, in reality…”  Amazingly, he was not off-putting in doing so.  In truth, one of Wright’s strengths is how very witty and engaging he is.  To put it simply, Wright is a likeable guy that you enjoy listening to (even his most strident critics admit as much).  Frank Thielman, in my opinion, was, today, a model of balanced irenicism in the panel discussion.  I was struck by his obviously sincere appreciation of many aspects of Wright’s programme as well as by his sincere questioning of other aspects of it.  (Thielman, I believe, studied under Wright at Duke Divinity for a while, and their appreciation of one another, even in their disagreements, was obvious and refreshing.)

I’m a bit back-and-forth on Schreiner’s efforts in the panel discussion.  Perhaps it’s simply a matter of body language and personality, but Schreiner seemed more…well…tense, I guess, or perhaps even defensive.  He did seem to kind of snipe here and there.  And yet, I do not want to be unfair: Schreiner is an impressive Pauline scholar in his own right and he raised a number of genuine concerns as well as, I think, reasonable challenges to Wright’s work.  Particularly, Schreiner did not seem to want to concede the point in Wright’s treatment of 2 Corinthians 5:21, and, for now, I remain convinced that he (and Thielman) are correct in pushing against Wright on this point.

In all, though, it was a very helpful, very fair, and very collegial discussion among three great minds on an important issue in theology.  N.T. Wright is a towering figure in Evangelicalism today, regardless of what one thinks of his work and proposals.  I remain unconvinced of some aspects of Wright’s proposals, and am convinced by others.  I will say that I do personally grow weary of the unfortunate (though, I trust, limited) almost-demonization of Wright by some of his more strident reformed critics.  Say what you will of Wright:  his work is important, he is a brother in Christ, and I believe that, in many ways, he can help us read the New Testament more clearly (I say this, again, with some reservations and qualifications).

So I’d like to commend ETS for a fine conference.  I am very glad I attended, and I intend to do so again.