Defining Evangelicalism

Thanks for pointing that out (the EA requirement of assent to penal substitutionary atonement for its members). I hadn’t noticed it, though it may have been in the statement of faith all along - I haven’t looked at that recently either. But we have been merrily signing up to it for years - the certificate of membership of the EA hangs proudly on our office walls, and it gives some credibility to the otherwise somewhat flakey outfit that we run here.

Statements of faith are very rough and ready ways of defining belief, and a bit like creeds, usually arise in reaction to perceived challenges. So I guess the EA statement was originally devised in reaction to a perceived threat from agendas which, in a previous era more than now, denied the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the scriptures, etc.

I personally think there is a limited value in statements of faith, since they give a rough outline of things that are felt to be of importance to their signatories, and since the EA networks among churches of broadly similar interests, my response to the requirement would be to sign up and move on.

However I think the dust thrown up about penal substitution is all something of a distraction. There can be an emphasis in evangelical preaching on penal substitution which to my mind is as damaging, and ultimately heretical, as denying its validity, and I’m sure we are living cheek by jowl with such churches within the EA fold. The fact is that penal substitution, like all explanations of the atonement, leans heavily on metaphor rather than literalistic description. It provides some insight, but also has some limitations. To me, the issue is how carefully and well the metaphor is handled, rather than denying or affirming its validity outright. There is a crude, literalistic interpretation, and to my mind, a powerful and carefully nuanced interpretation.

The Christian faith is primarily about faith in a person, not adherence to a set of rules. We are all engaged in the task of trying to interpret what the scriptures say about that person, but our interpretations of scripture have to be in dialogue with our on-going experience of what God is perceived to be doing in our lives. We are not called primarily to define the person we put our faith in, but to obey him, and lead others into faith and obedience. There is a weighting, ultimately, to experience over explanation. Beliefs about Christ are always going to be approximations. Statements of faith and creeds are always going to be like boxes, and God won’t be kept in a box. The congenital problem with evangelicals is to make the box of orthodox belief too all-encompassing, denying, in the process, the option for exploration, experimentation and creativity in theological thinking.

It is the case that various strands of contemporary theology have been seriously questioning penal substitution - and by serious, I wouldn’t include Steve Chalke/Alan Mann’s populist contribution, though that is also symptomatic of the trend. Equally I didn’t find that the EA sponsored symposium on the subject at the LST shed much if any real light on the issue. It is not feminist theology alone which sees violence as being covertly encouraged by the outworkings of a male dominated theology, and penal substitutionary atonement is said to be just one reflection of this. Mennonite discussions relate their understanding of the atonement directly to serious, credible involvement with the world in justice, ethical and lifestyle issues. However, the The EA demonstrates that it also has a track record of such involvement.

For whatever reasons it may have done so, the EA is probably right to stick to its principles over penal substitutionary atonement, the roots of which can be traced at least to the protestant reformation, and probably shouldn’t be dismissed at the stroke of a pen. For those who have conscientious objections to the concept, at least it might be something of a spur to provide convincingly considered counter arguments - if the views of the EA mattered that much to them. As for forums and bodies such as OST and emerging theological subcultures, I’d have thought non-conformity to the EA would add to the counter-cultural glamour. Subcultures thrive on non-conformity don’t they?

I think that you bring a very interesting and thought provoking idea to the table. It seems that this problem, however, is not a new one. The problem strikes at a much larger monster peaking through the window. It is the nature of such alliances. It is a tendency of such groups to add rather than take away requirements to be a part of the 'inclusive group.'  As time passes these groups always tend to make the inclusive smaller and the exclusive larger.

For example, the early fundamentalist movement was a direct attack against modernist fellowships that carried the word 'Christian' but denied massive selections of Scripture. A group of Christians wanted to distinguish themselves from the other label carrying Christians. They created the fundamentals, to define what it meant to be a 'true Christian.'

The five 'fundamentals' were as follows.

1. Inerrancy of original writings

2. Virgin birth and Deity of Christ

3. Substitutionary view of atonement

4. Bodily resurrection of Christ

5. Imminent return of Christ

I am not here to advocate such a perception of God nor to defend these particular doctrinal beliefs but the tendency for further exclusivity over time is readily apparent in this group.  If you trace these "fundamentals" throughout history you will quickly find premillennialism joining the "fundamentals" of the fundamentalist faith. Today, fundamentals are a small radical group of Christians who require belief in dozens, rather than five, core beliefs.

Even schools such as Moody Bible Institute shy away from calling themselves fundamentalists because of the massive weight such a term carries.

What is my point in showing this example? My point is that the term 'Evangelical' carries a very similar history. Any term that replaces the now inappropriate term is destined to the same history as well. The term post-evangelical will become more and more exclusive as the post-evangelical movement solidifies.

The group of 'post-evangelicals' will quickly define themselves as a group theologically distinct from evangelicals in a series of affirmations. As time progresses this term would need to be  redefined or restricted in light of new theological affirmations which stand to taint the name of post-evangelical. Thus this group would become another exclusive, intolerant community.

It seems that the best way to avoid such exclusivity is to recognize and affirm the positive and uplifting aspects of any group of people (evangelicals, emerging, liberal, or conservative) while being honest that these groups do not completely define your belief system.  This allows us to maintain theological independence without excluding massive groups of Christians who are struggling to do God's will, even if they interpret that will differently than we do.

I’d just like to say that I appreciate this thread and it’s willingness to try to get behind the broad and various directions of thinking about the story of atonement, albeit through the door of the EA statement. (Sorry not to follow your request, Pilgrim, to keep this to the point of the EA and evangelicalism. I do return towards it at the end. If this response needs re-threading please feel free)

Andrew says:

This ‘wrath of God’ has to be understood as the destructive consequences of Israel’s rebellion against YHWH (see this thread). If Jesus is ‘destroyed’ so that God could remain faithful to his promise, doesn’t that mean that he suffered punishment in the place of the remnant that would survive the war against Rome?

(Sorry not to format this as a quote, my system can’t use the editor)

Does this not, in its location of the judgement, provide an answer within the narrative historical moment (reading the story forwards) but not answer it well for the continuing (and, so far, rather sketchy) story of the future of that remnant (including the EA)? What it does do, (intentionally?) is to extract the question from the ethical offence inherent in much PSA. Here Jesus is ‘destroyed’ for the specific betrayal of covenant purpose implicit in Israel’s history, not the general ‘state of sin’ upon which PSA usually focuses. More precisely, it focuses the substitution in a faithful Jew representative of his nation rather than the ‘innocent volunteer’ or even the ‘innocent alien’ implied in the courtroom metaphor that normally stands in for PSA (a bit like a stunt-double in a film).

It seems to me that the weakness of Christendom’s PSA is not so much its inherent moral dubiousness, it is in the fact that it fails (within the modern privatised salvation model or any other). The punishment might be delivered but the guilt of the accused (forensically/ontologically) remains. PSA fails, or its modern tellings fail, to my mind, because it does not achieve any real form of satisfaction. It builds a legal drama and then fails to resolve that drama. All the other motifs inherent in the redemption narratives are solved quite apart from the legal one. The issue of sin as a state of being is resolved through the recovery of relationship and the work of the Spirit. The issue of forgiveness (as discussed elsewhere) seems to be running with one shoe nailed to the floor, with the nail being the notion of sin as crime. But forgiveness has to be mentioned because it carries essentially the question of debt and ‘who pays the price’.

I guess my question would be: what is provided in PSA, and in the penal motif generally, that is not also provided by different language? What does ‘suffering punishment’ give us that ‘suffering the consequence’ does not, or that ‘suffering the effect’ does not?

I suspect that we are wrestling with sub-plots, with issues beneath the surface of our own thinking. We might be uncomfortable with the ease with which PSA adopts the suggested hostility of God. We might be struggling to detach the story from the eisegesis of modern judicial impressions, and consequently with the presumption of sin as crime.

But I am struggling with something else as well. I am struggling to find a way to relate the Evangelical metanarrative, the drama of salvation, to the missiological questions in our role as agents of the redemption of creation, of ‘all things’. I find it hard to see much of a future for Christian engagement on restorative justice, for example, if our doctrinal basis is retributive. How on earth are we going to speak to issues of justice and mercy, to critique the economically and politically driven notions of justice dominant in our societies if we cannot get through the fundamental questions of the nature of redemption and atonement within our own core doctrines?

Perhaps it is this more than anything that prompts this response to a thread that I am so singularly unqualified to enter!