The last few years have seen a plethora of books on the subject of evangelicalism. While some writers are critical, the overwhelming majority of them present the picture of a Christian movement which is sweeping all before it, triumphing over both liberalism and ritualism. Evangelical Christianity is making the church at large sit up and take notice. But the triumph is an illusion. Behind the hype, the citation of statistics and the self-congratulation, many evangelicals have become confused and distracted from the critical tasks of evangelism and edification. Part of the cause of this is a new reluctance in some quarters to clarify just what is genuine evangelical belief and practice.
There is no doubt that an obsession with self-definition is a recipe for disaster. It is possible to spend so much time describing what evangelicals believe and practise that no time is left to believe and practise. However, a more serious danger facing us today is an unconscious theological shift as more and more people claim the label ‘evangelical’ for themselves. It is that danger which makes it necessary for evangelicals to periodically call each other back to the foundations of evangelical Christianity. Only against such a call can we helpfully face the critical hard questions: Has evangelicalism sold out? Has it lost its heart?
I am convinced that genuine evangelicalism can only be defined theologically. Evangelicals are those whose beliefs and practice are shaped by the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are unavoidably cross-centred people, for the gospel is the declaration of Christ’s atoning death and victorious resurrection with its summons to faith and a life of discipleship. They are just as clearly Bible people, for their knowledge of the gospel arises from the pages of Holy Scripture. It is a distinctive theology which characterises evangelicalism and, for precisely this reason, attempts to define it in other ways—in terms of sociology or spirituality—will always distort the picture.
History of the word
The long history of the word ‘evangelical’ (an adjective derived from the Greek word for ‘gospel’) bears out such a claim. Tertullian was among the first to use it, around 200 A.D., in his defence of biblical truth against the heresies of Marcion. Martin Luther shocked the Christian church in 1519, when he described as “altogether Christian and evangelical” some of the teachings of Jan Hus, a Bohemian theologian who had been condemned and burnt at the stake in 1415. It would later be the only label Luther would accept for his own teaching. Sir Thomas More is generally recognised as the man who brought the word into the English language. In the course of a quite vitriolic attack on William Tyndale in 1532, More spoke of ‘those evangelicalles’.
This self-conscious commitment to the biblical gospel also explains why evangelicalism is not satisfied with being described as one particular brand of Christianity. John Stott put it this way in 1970:
It is the contention of evangelicals that they are plain Bible Christians, and that in order to be a biblical Christian it is necessary to be an evangelical Christian. (J.R.W. Stott, Christ the controversialist: A study in some essentials of the evangelical religion. [Tyndale, 1970], 32.)
Such a statement raises the stakes enormously when we come to explain just what is an evangelical. We are not simply defining an interesting and distinctive group within the Christian spectrum; we are defining authentic, biblical Christianity. Evangelical theology is not simply a means of self-identification; it is God’s truth for the world.
Distinctives of Evangelical Theology
Evangelical theology arises from the gospel of Jesus Christ. The grand rescue mission of God, which is the theme of both the Old Testament and the New, carries with it certain basic perspectives.
1. A Distinctive View of Revelation and Theology
The authority of Scripture
Without doubt the most basic and distinctive aspect of evangelical theology is its view of the Bible. A commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ entails a commitment to the authoritative Scripture, not only because the gospel is made known to us in these very pages, but primarily because this was the attitude of Christ himself. Jesus explained himself and his work in terms of God’s purposes as expressed in the Old Testament. He also anticipated the New Testament when he spoke of the Spirit enabling the apostles to remember all that he had told them (Jn 14:26) and when he prayed for those who would believe through the word of the apostles (Jn 17:20). His commission and authorization stands behind the ministry of the apostles and their writing. In the end, any attempt to separate the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Bible will distort both, for the God of the gospel is the God of the Bible (2 Cor 4:6), and the gospel itself is the central theme of the whole Bible (Lk 24:27).
This collection of books is not just an expression of human self-consciousness, nor is it simply a record of human religious beliefs or experiences. The Bible is the living and active Word of God. What the Bible says, God says, and those who have been rescued by God recognize his voice (1 Th 2:13; Jn 10:1-18).
This is clearly the Bible’s own testimony about itself: An evangelical doctrine ofthe Word of God really begins in Genesis 1, where God speaks and the universe comes into being. The words that God speaks have a unique character. They are powerful and creative, expressing God’s mind and purpose. They always accomplish what he intends (Isa 55:8-11). It comes as no surprise, then, that when God becomes a man, he stills storms with a word (Mk 4:35-41), casts out demons with a word (Mk 5:1-20), heals the sick with a word (Mk 1:40-44) and even raises the dead with a word (Mk 5:35-43). God speaks and it is so.
It is God himself who commands that his word be written down and that it become the authoritative guide and criterion of judgement for his people. In fact, God himself is the first to present his word in written form (Ex 31:18). In these written words God confronts his people, challenging them and comforting them as directly and effectively as when he spoke to Moses in the cloud. They are not merely a record of God’s self-revelation—they are that revelation. What is more, their divine authority and reliability is in no way diminished by the fact that God used very human writers in the process. God does not by-pass the mind or personality of each writer, for those things too are his creation. Through the work of his Spirit, God enables them to write his word, not just their own (2 Pet 1:20-21). This is not only true of the Old Testament, as is clear from the way Jesus refers to it (e.g. Matt 19:4-5), but of the New Testament as well. Even while the apostles were still alive and writing, their words were recognised as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16; see also 1 Tim 5:18, where the second Scripture quotation is not found in the Old Testament, but is a saying of Jesus recorded in Luke 10:7).
It is against this background and as part of the teaching of the entire Bible that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 is to be understood. It is the classic statement of Scripture about itself and in light of what has been said it cannot be restricted in reference to the Old Testament alone. In the context of a threat from false teaching, Paul speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture. These writings are unique for they come from the mouth of God and are God’s full and sufficient provision to thoroughly equip Christians for life as the rescued children of God.
The Scriptures, then, stand as the unique source of our knowledge of God. Only in the light of the Scriptures can we understand how the heavens declare the glory of God. Only in the light of the Scriptures can we understand the reason for the ambiguities of life. Only in the Scriptures can we discern the mind of God and the seriousness of his love towards us.
For this reason the Scriptures must stand above every other pronouncement on matters of faith and practice. This does not imply a refusal to think hard and creatively about the implications of the Christian gospel. Nor does it imply a presupposition that every other piece of theological writing is untrue. Even before the time of Tertullian, biblical Christians read and wrote things other than the Bible. Luther, the great champion of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), regularly quoted the church fathers, especially Augustine. But Tertullian, Luther and other biblical Christians measured such writings by the teaching of Holy Scripture. Nothing has the right to bind the Christian conscience except Scripture alone. Where Christian teaching or human reason or even personal experience conflict with Scripture, they are to be rejected. The Bible settles the matter.
This must apply to evangelical theology itself, as John Stott made clear:
Certainly it is the desire of evangelicals to be neither more nor less than biblical Christians. Their intention is not to be partisan, that is, they do not cling to certain tenets for the sake of maintaining their identity as a ‘party’. On the contrary, they have always expressed their readiness to modify, even abandon, any or all of their cherished beliefs if they can be shown to be unbiblical. (Stott, p.32).
One important corollary of this is not particularly popular at the moment. If biblical truth matters, and if we genuinely care for our evangelical brothers and sisters, then we will be prepared to challenge them when they stray from that truth. Solomon’s words are more true than we often recognize: “faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov 27:6).
2. A Distinctive View of Human Nature
The seriousness of sin
The gospel is good news precisely because of the seriousness of the human predicament. Jesus’ death and resurrection would make no sense if there was no danger from which we need to be rescued, and the cross would be a barbaric overreaction on God’s part if that danger could be averted in any other way. Yet the testimony of the entire Bible is that every human being is in a very real and serious danger of his or her own making.
This greatest of all dangers facing men and women is a long-standing one, originating with the decisions of the first man and woman to disobey God and grasp the opportunity of moral independence (Gen 3). They embraced the possibility of deciding for themselves what is right and wrong without dependence upon the word of God, and so they chose to abandon trust in God. It was a fundamentally self-centred and self-seeking decision and, as Genesis 3 and indeed the rest of the Bible make clear, its consequences were devastating. The entire human race shares in their corruption and guilt, for from our earliest moments we are all predisposed to make the same choice, setting ourselves up as the authoritative centre of our lives (Rom 5:12). A bias towards sin characterises every man, woman and child (Rom 3:23).
The element of danger lies in the fact that our sin alienates us from God and makes us his enemies (Isa 59:1-2; Col 1:21). It provokes the coming wrath of God (Rom 1:18-32; Col 3:56). In the face of our guilt and corruption, the prospect of judgement is terrifying (Heb 9:27; 10:31).
This predicament is compounded by our inability to remedy it ourselves. The Bible uses two key pictures to underline our inability to save ourselves. The first is slavery—the natural human condition is slavery to sin (Rom 6). Our whole existence is conditioned by an allegiance which we are not able to repudiate. The second picture is death: apart from Christ we are ‘dead in our sins’ (Eph 2:1). Here there is a world of difference between ‘sick’ and ‘dead’. The former suggests some possibility of recovery; the latter brings an end to all such hopes. If we are to be rescued from the danger pressing in upon us, it will not be by our own doing. The initiative must come from outside.
Evangelical theology affirms that the most basic need of men and women is for a means of forgiveness and reconciliation with God. It argues that attempts to modify this understanding of the human predicament lead in the end to a different gospel and a different ministry. Accordingly, while evangelicals have made significant contributions, in areas such as justice for the oppressed, international peace, and environmental awareness, they have steadfastly maintained that these are not the gospel, and that a theological preoccupation with such goals inevitably entails a confusion about the plight of humankind. The Bible takes us beyond the symptoms to the disease.
3. A Distinctive View of Salvation
The penal substitutionary atonement of Christ
As clearly as the foundation of evangelical theology is the authority of the Scripture, the heart of evangelical theology is the cross of Jesus Christ. While the incarnation is important, not least in affirming that Jesus is truly God and truly man, it is by his death that he makes the atonement which deals with our sin and restores us to God. He dies in our place, bearing the penalty for our sin, in line with God’s ancient intention. Here, indeed, is the most profound demonstration of God’s love for us.
This saving act of God in Christ is in prospect from the very earliest pages of the Bible. In fact, many have recognised that it is the promise of a full, final and effective solution to the problem of sin and its consequences which holds the Bible together and propels the Old Testament into the New. This promise is unfolded gradually, beginning with barely more than the hint of a promised deliverer who will suffer in the process of rescuing God’s rebellious creation (Gen 3:15), and climaxing in the prophetic announcement of the Suffering Servant who takes upon himself “the iniquities of us all” and bears “the chastisement that makes us whole” (Isa 53). Along the way important anticipations of the atonement in and through Jesus are given in the Exodus and Passover narratives (Ex 11-12) and amongst the Psalms (e.g. Ps 22).
The New Testament evidence is both abundant and unambiguous. John the Baptist’s testimony to Jesus located him against the background of the Old Testament promises. As Jesus came towards him, John declared, “Behold, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” an 1:29). Jesus also described his mission in these terms: he came to serve and to be, a “ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). He clearly embraced the mission of the Suffering Servant, explicitly applying Isaiah 53 to himself in Luke 22:37. He was the one who would accomplish at last the atonement for which the whole Old Testament had been waiting. The testimony of the apostles also stands in perfect continuity with that of Jesus himself: When they speak of the atonement effected by Jesus’ death on the cross, they appeal to Old Testament images and categories to explain this great event, just as Jesus did. Jesus died in our place and bore the curse of God for us (2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 Jn 2:2).
Penal substitution is not, therefore, one amongst many models of the atonement, as some assert. Neither can it be described as a ‘theory’ arising outside of the biblical texts. Evangelical theology insists that while penal substitution does not exhaust all that can be said about the cross and resurrection of Jesus, it is the basic biblical understanding without which other perspectives are devoid of any real meaning. At the heart of the atonement is Jesus’ death in our place, a death which involves bearing the penalty for our sin. Here is God’s most profound answer to the human dilemma. This is what makes the gospel such good news.
Mark’s article concludes in our next issue with a discussion of three further evangelical distinctives, and some concluding remarks about love, truth, and why evangelicalism is not ‘monochrome’.
