We need to be reminded m.ore often than we need to be instructed, someone once wisely uttered. It is a characteristically human trait to forget that for which we stand, even though we still stand for it. Last Briefing, Mark Thompson reminded us of the heart of evangelical belief, casting his words in the light of today’s various endeavours to redefine what it means to be an evangelical. He began to describe the distinctives of evangelical theology, starting with the authority of Scripture, the seriousness of sin and the atonement. He continues that task in this article, challenging us to be truly loving and to love the truth, as we clearly adhere to these distinctives: the matters which give us our heart.
A distinctive view of Christian response
Justification by faith alone
The gospel of Jesus Christ is both an announcement and a summons—the announcement of God’s intervention to save us and a summons to respond with faith. Hebrews 11 makes clear that this dynamic of promise and trust is the nature of the relationship between God and his people throughout the Old Testament.
The most obvious example is Abraham. When God announces his intention to Abraham, an intention which in the circumstances seemed improbable to say the least, we are told “Abraham believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). Abraham was not perfect, as the succeeding chapters of Genesis show quite clearly. He could not and he did not earn God’s favour. But God was worth trusting. What he promised to do he would do. Abraham knew that, and he responded by trusting God. God declares that response to be righteousness.
Throughout the Old Testament the promise of salvation points to the future. The search for the seed of the woman, which began back in Genesis 3, generates a restlessness which drives us from the Old Testament into the New. None of the great figures of faith in the Old Testament actually received what had been promised (Heb 11:39). They died in faith, trusting that the fulfilment was still to come. God had promised and they believed him. They, like Abraham, were right with God.
Jesus appears against this background, as the fulfilment of God’s promises and the object of faith. He stands in stark contrast to the performance-oriented Judaism of the time, a grotesque mutation from the covenantal faith of the Old Testament. He exercises an “authority to forgive sin on the earth” in unexpected directions (Mk 2:10). He is happy to be described as “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Lk 7:34). His controversial parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector exposes the bankruptcy of all attempts to relate to God on the basis of performance. The tax collector who had nothing to plead before God, not the Pharisee with all his boasts, “went home justified before God” (Lk 18:14). At Jesus’ death, those who trumpet their own righteousness mock him, while those who recognize that their only hope lies in him hear the words of forgiveness and assurance (Lk 23:40-43).
Paul’s teaching on justification is perfectly consistent with its embodiment in the ministry of Jesus. God is the one who “justifies the ungodly” (Rom 4:5). A right standing with God comes not through personal or corporate religious performance but “through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Those who put their trust in Jesus are right with God and need no longer fear the prospect of condemnation (Rom 8:1-4). Our new standing with God is not our own invention; it is his declaration in the face of the effective atonement made by Jesus on the cross and our faith in him (Rom 3:22-26).
‘Justification by faith alone’ is a slogan which reflects the New Testament teaching of “justification apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28). It safeguards the Christian insistence that our boast lies in God alone (1 Cor 1:30-31). However, nowhere in the New Testament or the Old is it suggested that this is the end of the matter. Genuine faith changes lives. In the matter of salvation, faith stands alone as our appropriate response to what God has done. Nevertheless, genuine faith is never alone. Living faith is bound to reveal itself in repentance and embracing a new life as God’s children. The biblical insistence on faith alone does not compromise the biblical concern for godliness in the life of the believer, rather it places that concern in its proper context (Rom 6; Jas 2).
Throughout Christian history, gospel-minded men and women have remarked on the importance of ‘justification by faith alone’. This doctrine plays a pivotal role in Christian theology, safeguarding the initiative of God in salvation and undermining all human boasting. It focuses our attention on Christ and his cross rather than our performance.
In recent years, some very sophisticated attempts have been made to modify this doctrine, and to displace it from the centre of evangelical theology. Scholars associated with the so-called ‘New Perspective’ on Paul have argued variously that ‘justification by faith’ is a peculiarly Pauline doctrine, that it is restricted to his concern for Jew-Gentile relations and that it is more about corporate covenant membership than individual standing with God.
However, evangelicals are bound to point out that, whatever the covenantal background or context, Paul remains deeply concerned over the fate of the individual before God, his teaching about the way God ‘justifies the ungodly’ reflects, as we have seen, the teaching ofthe whole Bible, and is embodied in the ministry of Jesus himself.
A distinctive view of grace and the Spirit
The necessity of the new birth
Jesus’ death and resurrection remains the one and only basis for our acceptance with God. We are called to respond to that marvellous provision by repentance and faith. However, such a response does not come naturally to human beings who are trapped in the slavery and death of sin, both guilty and corrupt. God must work a miracle within us, creating the very things which cannot be produced from the depths of a depraved heart.
John’s Gospel emphasises this human inability to believe without the miraculous intervention of God. Christians are not children of God by virtue of a human decision On 1:12-13); rather, through the work of God’s Spirit, they must be ‘born again’ an 3:3,5). The use of imagery from Ezekiel 36 in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus reminds us that this ‘new birth’ has always been God’s intention. This teaching of Jesus is highly significant. Both the objective and subjective dimensions of salvation are the work of God: God has provided the atonement in Christ, and God has brought us to new birth by his Spirit in order that we might enjoy the benefits of Christ’s atonement. Christians stand as grateful recipients of a full and final salvation, not as its initiators or contributors.
Here is the most basic evangelical understanding of the work of the Spirit. In recent years some have suggested that evangelicalism has ignored the Holy Spirit. This is simply not true. The person and work of the Holy Spirit have never been neglected by evangelical writers. Evangelicals have always maintained the significance of the Spirit in creation, redemption and the life of the church. They have always spoken of the Spirit’s vital role in the greatest miracle of all: bringing a person from death to life. What is distinctive is their steadfast refusal to trivialize the work of the Spirit or to ignore the fact that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Eph 6:17). The Christian response to God’s mercy in Christ is impossible without the work of the Spirit: the new birth. The Christian life is life in the Spirit. “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Rom 8:9). Personal conversion is the outward manifestation of this inward reality.
This is precisely why evangelical theology cannot be described as abstract or merely intellectual. It is profoundly experiential, for it recognises that the beginning of the Christian life is the experience of new birth brought about by the Spirit of God. So while evangelicalism can only be defined theologically, its theology is intensely practical, proclaiming the direct personal address of the living God to one made alive by the Holy Spirit.
A distinctive view of universal history
The imminent personal return of Jesus to judge
The urgency of the gospel call to repentance and faith is anchored in a future reality guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. God has “set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). The culmination of human and universal history will be the creation of a new heavens and a new earth (Rev 21:1), but this will be preceded by the judgement of all men and women (Rev 20:11-15). In the light of these realities, Christians can be described as those who have “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath” (1 Thess 1:9-10).
There are a variety of views, even within evangelicalism, on the chronology and precise nature of the events leading up to the final judgement. In part, these arise from our difficulties in understanding the apocalyptic language of the Book of Revelation. Nevertheless, the personal return of the glorified Lord Jesus and the reality of universal judgement are beyond dispute. What is also clear is that the only hope of rescue lies in Jesus Christ himself: It is this sure and certain rescue which takes the fear out of the future for the Christian and makes the promise of Jesus’ return a message of comfort (1 Thess 4:13-18).
Such a view of the future carries with it a distinctive view of the present. The New Testament is full of warnings about the unexpectedness of Jesus’ return and the Book of Revelation concludes with Jesus’ promise to come soon (Rev 22:7). It also presents us with the reason for an interval between Jesus’ ascension and return: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). The present time is an opportunity for repentance and faith. The end of all things is delayed so that others might be included in the great Rescue. That is the great concern of God for the present age. That is the great concern of those already rescued for the present age.
It is no surprise then that evangelism is at the forefront of evangelical practice. This commitment springs not only from our view of the future and the present, but also from our understanding of the Bible, the human predicament, the work of Christ and the necessity of faith and new birth by the Spirit. God’s kindness in rescuing us through Christ creates in us a desire to see others rescued too. The reality of judgement and the magnitude of God’s mercy in Jesus combine as a most powerful motivation for evangelistic ministry (2 Cor 5:11-21).
The critical coherence of evangelical theology
Clearly these six fundamental perspectives do not exhaust evangelical theology. Evangelicals have much to say about the Trinity, creation and the church, amongst many other things. This article has not been intended as an exercise in determining the minimum one must believe to be considered an evangelical. However, it is these six biblical truths which give evangelical theology its basic shape. They cohere in their relation to the gospel of Jesus and their foundation in the text of Scripture. Therefore, it is the modification of theology at these critical points that characterizes a shift from evangelicalism.
In today’s climate the modifications rarely take the form of negation. Though there are some who would deny one or other of these perspectives and still claim the label ‘evangelical’, the more dangerous—and sadly more frequent—modification comes through addition. This has always been the case. Reformation theology is often summarized by the slogans ‘Scripture alone’, ‘Christ alone’, ‘Grace alone’ and ‘Faith alone’. Jim Packer has echoed their concerns when he wrote:
You cannot add to evangelical theology without subtracting from it. By augmenting it, you cannot enrich it; you can only impoverish it. Thus, for example, if you add to it a doctrine of human priestly mediation you take away the truth of the perfect adequacy of our Lord’s priestly mediation. If you add to it a doctrine of human merit, in whatever form, you take away the truth of the merits of Christ… The principle applies at point after point. What is more than evangelical is less than evangelical. Evangelical theology, by its very nature, cannot be supplemented; it can only be denied.1
Put another way, the crucial questions are ones of sufficiency. Is the Bible sufficient as the saving revelation of God? Evangelicals have answered ‘yes’ to this question; those outside the evangelical tradition have supplemented the Bible with human reason, church pronouncements or private visions, dreams and prophetic statements. Is Jesus’ death sufficient to deal with our sins and secure our relationship with God? Again evangelicals have answered ‘yes’, while nonevangelicals have argued that the ministrations of the church play a role in this as well. Is faith sufficient as the appropriate response to the offer of forgiveness? The evangelical affirmative to this question stands in stark contrast with the imposition of works, or ceremonies, or second experiences.
Room to move
Evangelicalism, even when defined in terms of its theological distinctives, is not entirely monochrome. Outside of these distinctives there is room for difference and even disagreement without resorting to disenfranchising one another. However, the fundamental perspectives of evangelical theology ought to inform the way we handle such points of difference.
Some points of difference arise on matters about which the Bible is largely, and in some cases completely, silent. The decisions about when and how to baptize seem to fall into this category. While good cases can be mounted for both infant and adult baptism, the fact is that the Bible says little about baptism in relation to the children of believers. The appropriate evangelical response to such differences is to recognize the issues as matters of Christian freedom. We have no right to bind the consciences of other believers in ways that the Scriptures do not. We might hold firmly to our own view as a legitimate expression of biblical principles. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to invest those views with the same authority as the teaching of Scripture.
Differences of another kind also emerge within an evangelicalism that remains true to the theological foundations outlined earlier in this article. These are differences over what precisely the Bible is saying on a given issue it addresses. A commitment to the truth of Scripture and its authority for faith and practice demands a quite different response in these cases. Because understanding what God has to say on the issue is of paramount importance, and because we acknowledge the pervasive influence of sin on our hearts and minds, evangelicals are committed to dialogue and the repeated re-examination of the passages in question. This is not always easy because it involves admitting that we may have misunderstood what a particular passage is saying. Nevertheless, the truth is more important than maintaining a position or winning an argument. Sometimes, the questions of a critic are an important step along the way to a clearer understanding of just what the Bible is saying.
Love and truth
Evangelicalism can only be defined theologically and in relation to the gospel of Jesus Christ because ‘evangelical’ is simply another way of saying ‘biblical Christian’. Yet this is a dangerous business. It alienates those who, for whatever reason, wish to retain the label while ‘growing out of’ its basic beliefs. It raises the question of theological truth and implies that other Christian traditions (Catholic, charismatic, liberal) involve some kind of error. Surely, some have argued, it would be more loving to define evangelicalism in another way, one which would allow us to soften those distinctions and embrace the ecumenical spirit.
In the last few years attempts to do this have been made; attempts to go beyond a theological definition of evangelicalism. Using a much broader brush than I have in this article, it is possible to paint a rosy picture of the onward march of evangelicals and a new golden age for the church. What was once seen as theological difference is now being cherished as diversity (one book I’ve read actually listed the ‘twelve tribes of evangelicalism’). We are told that mature evangelicalism rejoices in its new-found diversity, discovering brotherhood in the most unlikely of places. A new positive outlook has replaced the negativity which characterized evangelicalism for so long.
Yet the sad truth is that such redefinition results in an evangelicalism with no heart. The evangelicalism it describes has surrendered to a caricature of itself as narrow-minded and negative, and obligingly transformed itself into an amorphous entity which stands for nothing and smiles benignly at the compromise of its most cherished beliefs. It has forgotten that genuine Christian unity is unity in the truth. It has in effect pursued a balance of love and truth rather than both love and truth. This ‘new evangelicalism’ needs to be reminded that love built on a lie is not love at all and stands opposed to the purposes of God in both the Old and New Testaments.
The heart of genuine evangelicalism is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. This gospel is the only hope for a world heading towards judgement. Evangelicals cannot afford to be distracted from its proclamation. Our distinctive theological framework urges us to this task. In the final analysis, the vindication of evangelicalism does not lie in gaining the attention of the world at the end of the twentieth century, but in the salvation of men and women who have heard the truth and believed.
Endnotes
1 J.I. Packer, The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem: An Analysis, Latimer Studies 1 (Oxford: Latimer, 1978), pp 17-18.
