Atonement and Unity

The Evangelical Alliance’s Board has issued a statement clarifying its position on penal substitution. Rob James spoke with Board and Council Chairs David Porter and Derek Tidball, reflecting on the issue in the light of the Alliance’s history…

Evangelical unity is a precious if somewhat elusive prize. The Evangelical Alliance was established in 1846 to promote Christian unity, evangelical truth and religious liberty, but the newly born world movement faced an immediate setback when there were major disagreements over slavery, forcing some Americans to withdraw.

Council Chair Derek Tidball is conscious then that there have been both highs and lows in the Alliance’s 160-year history. He singles out the Alliance’s involvement in the visits of Billy Graham, as well as the renewal of confidence that took place under Clive Calver’s leadership, as high points in his memory.

He has also become increasingly conscious of the highly significant work that continues as the Alliance seeks to unite evangelicals and provide leadership in spiritual and social transformation. ‘One of the things that has impressed me since I became chair of Council is the enormous work the staff do on behalf of evangelicals in Parliament, the media and other opinion formers and decision makers in our land,’ he explained. ‘Others may sometimes grab greater headlines, but the work of the Evangelical Alliance is enormously respected – even sought out.’

Both Tidball and Board Chair David Porter are committed to working out the Alliance’s original aims – albeit in a very different climate. Indeed, Porter suggests that ‘the lesson of being around so long is how we hold on to our foundational principles, but in a context that is rapidly changing.’

Porter views the recent debate over the atonement from this perspective. ‘There is scope for diversity here provided we are all remaining committed to the core truths,’ he explained. He is not saddened by ‘hard thinking about theological engagement with contemporary culture’, but is concerned that we do not too readily ‘distance ourselves from long understood truths’. As we present the work of God to the world, says Porter, ‘we will inevitably highlight different sides of the truth, but none of us are at liberty to ignore the totality, the full scope of that truth.’

Tidball agrees. While stressing that ‘no evangelical worth the name understands the cross simply in terms of penal substitution,’ he believes it is ‘one of the defining characteristics of evangelicalism. We must never sacrifice the wonderful assurance that this interpretation of the cross brings,’ he added.

Having said that, neither Porter nor Tidball regret the role the Alliance has played to date. ‘The Evangelical Alliance has been, in my view, unjustly criticised for the work it has done in seeking to encourage evangelicals to listen to each other,’ says Tidball. ‘It is governed by its doctrinal basis and by its practical resolutions. It is with the practical resolutions in mind that we have been at work through the area of disagreement. Naturally, therefore, the Evangelical Alliance has been shot at from both sides of the debate by those who feel passionately about their particular way of expressing the message of the atonement. But we must continue to strive for unity. This is exactly one of the things that the Evangelical Alliance should be doing when evangelicals are disagreeing.’

And stressing that membership of the Alliance has always been open to individuals who can conscientiously sign the doctrinal basis, Tidball concludes, ‘My hope is that we spend less time in this coming year debating with each other about the cross and more time announcing the good news of the cross to a needy and unbelieving world.’