On Friday, N.T. Wright will be giving the plenary session at the Evangelical Theological Society (9:10-10:00AM, Grand Ballroom). The title of his lecture is “Justification Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”. This will be followed by a panel discussion including Thomas Schreiner of SBTS and Frank Thielman of Beeson Divinity School. In addition to this there are several papers being presented interacting with Wright (see this PDF, search “Wright”).
If you are going to be present and you intend on live blogging or post-blogging on the event (or writing of any kind) leave a link in the comments to your blog or the post so that others, such as myself, can follow along. Also, if you plan on live Tweeting it do let us know your account name.
__________________
On another note, ETS says that members must affirm inerrancy. Does Wright affirm inerrancy? I know most European evangelicals are comfortable with forms of infallibility and inspiration, but not inerrancy. If Wright does not affirm inerrancy what was the reasoning being his invitation to a society where this is one of two cornerstone doctrines (the other being the Trinity)?
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian,
I’ll be posting my thoughts this weekend. As for inerrancy, ETS often invites non-members and other non-members can attend the conference as well. James Charlesworth is giving a achaeology lecture this week and I think it safe to assume he does not hold inerrancy.
@Daniel,
Great, I’ll make sure to check your blog. Thanks for the ETS clarification.
Also, I know Marc Cortez is blogging as well: http://westernthm.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/first-thoughts-on-ets/
Ah!
I think Wright and PR might work well together . . . don’t know?
I think your point on the consistency of calling Wright to give a paper/lecture at ETS is a good point or question, Brian? I remember in the past ETS used the inerrancy card to try and get rid of some Open Theists amongst them; if I recall correctly.
It is odd. It seems a bit inconsistent but I guess I can see the loop-hole.
Wright fits well within the “Evangelical” style (in some ways), so I can see the reasoning. Also, even while at Multnomah a lot of profs would give someone like CS Lewis (Evangelical poster boy) a pass on inerrancy; they would say to me, when I askde some about this, that the Brits and Europeans never really had to deal with inerrancy — that inerrancy is an American/modernist phenonomenon, thus so goes the reasoning 🙂 .
Which raises the question: If it is a monocultural issue is it really an issue?!
Only if you’re an American 😉 .
Well, I am stuck there.
Although, it probably should be noted, that insofar as American Christianity and “culture” has been transported to other nations (through missions, study Bibles [MacArthur, et al], internet, etc.); that this also problematizes the monoculture issue a bit — even if its a legitimate and even true point.
True. I think there is no arguing against the fact that global Christianity is always, in part, Americanized.
Another ETS blogger here: http://jeffwrightjr.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/ets-2010/