CUERPO II: EXÁMENES DE APTITUD PSICO-FÍSICA
4. Estudios complementarios: psicodiagnósticos y neuropsicológicos …. 55
Bases of faith, such as that of the Evangelical Alliance (EA) or the Christian Union movement, the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF), are the best known forms of evangelical self-‐definition. The intention of such doctrinal definitions is to define evangelicalism in contradistinction to other traditions of Christianity. Some of these definitions are made rather narrow for polemical reasons, and effectively ‘disinherit’ many who would describe themselves as evangelical. Warner’s extensive study of bases of faith throughout the period makes it clear how doctrinal definitions are battlefields of internal warfare in evangelicalism between liberal and conservative:
18 This sort of confusion may lie behind Hunter’s apparent misdiagnosis in the 1980s that American evangelicalism was disintegrating under the pressures of modernity. James Davison Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).
in the post-‐liberal context of the late twentieth century, progressive and neo-‐conservative evangelicalism increasingly defined
themselves over against one another... Each to the other has become the enemy within, to be disputed if not disowned.19
Caution must be exercised here, then, in turning to such evangelical self-‐
definitions as a tool of analysis, lest they pre-‐determine the outcome of any study by drawing its boundaries in a way that coincides with the vision of one side or the other. Doctrinal definitions offered by non-‐evangelical
commentators are sometimes less than incisive, however. American social scientist James Davison Hunter, for example, suggests biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Christ and the salvific efficacy of Christ’s death and physical resurrection as doctrinal distinctives, which is both too narrow (not all evangelicals are inerrantist) and too wide (many non-‐evangelicals, especially Catholics, hold both other doctrines).20
However, given the difficulties with more functional definitions, some element of doctrinal definition seems unavoidable if a workable definition is to be found, one that seeks to define the centre of an evangelical tradition rather than rule that certain groups are not ‘true’ evangelicals. J.I. Packer offered a fairly non-‐controversial doctrinal definition in the 1970s, which can helpfully be nuanced by reference to Stott’s point that these are doctrines that while not exclusively held by evangelicals have always been held by them in this
combination even when other traditions have de-‐emphasised certain elements of them.21 Packer identifies four ‘general claims’ of evangelicalism about the Christian life: that it must be practical (it is a lifestyle of discipleship), pure (it
19 Warner, Reinventing, 149-‐233, 228.
20 James Davison Hunter, American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandry of Modernity (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983), 7.
21 Packer, Identity Problem; Stott, Evangelical Truth, 11.
consists of an essential gospel truth that cannot be added to without diminishing it), unitive (all Christians may unite through their common
commitment to this truth regardless of what else divides them) and rational (it is essentially a belief held, not something experienced); and six ‘particular convictions’: the supremacy of Scripture, the majesty of Jesus Christ, the lordship of the Holy Spirit, the necessity of conversion, the priority of
evangelism, and the importance of fellowship. Packer’s basic doctrinal definition has been taken up with minor modifications by both McGrath and Stott, giving it some pedigree as a centrist and relatively non-‐polemical definition.22 It is rather broader a definition than those found in some doctrinal bases, as is apparent if we focus on two areas of current doctrinal sensitivity: the nature and scope of biblical authority and the atonement.
Packer’s rather generalist statement of scriptural authority sees the Bible as being ‘both sufficient and self-‐interpreting (theologically, that is) as a guide from God on all matters of faith and practice’, where the Reform Covenant speaks of ‘The infallibility and supreme authority of "God's Word written" and its clarity and sufficiency for the resolving of disputes about Christian faith and life.’23 It should be recognised that Packer would not flinch to use the terms
‘infallible’ and ‘inerrant’, being involved in the drafting of one of the most trenchant twentieth century evangelical statements of inerrancy in the same year.24 His understanding of these terms as given elsewhere is essentially that
22 McGrath, Evangelicalism, 51; Stott, Evangelical Truth, 26. Notably all three register some discontent with narrower doctrinal definitions.
23 Packer, Identity Problem, 20; ‘The Reform Covenant’, Reform Website, http://reform.org.uk/about/reform-‐covenant (January 25, 2012).
24 ‘The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy’ [1978],
http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf (January 25, 2012).
they affirm the reliability (in the scope of its reference) and the trustworthiness (in the truthfulness of its assertions) respectively of scripture.25 However, he here displays a commitment to gracious inclusivity, giving a considerably less narrow definition. Although both statements avoid the term inerrancy and appear to restrict sufficiency to matters of Christian faith and practice, Reform’s use of infallibility is meant to imply inerrancy in line with the statement in their explanatory notes that ‘in everything that it [scripture] is seeking to say it will not err or make a mistake.’26
Packer’s description of the atonement is broad, seeking to establish what evangelicals believe without ruling out any alternative interpretations. Despite the fact that the language he uses is recognisably penal substitutionary (and that elsewhere he insists on the importance of the doctrine), he never uses the term, let alone specifying what form of it might be authentically evangelical. He states that evangelical belief is that Jesus’ death is ‘a sacrifice which covers sin, averts God’s judicial anger, reconciles us to him and so delivers us from spiritual bondage and jeopardy.’27 (Stott, interestingly, here demonstrates a rare
polemicism, tightening up the definition by explicitly disavowing N.T. Wright’s new perspective on Paul, which would sit comfortably within Packer’s
definition, and asserting that evangelicals must hold to penal substitution
25 Warner, Reinventing, 193-‐4.
26 Mark Burkill, “The What and Why of the Reform Covenant” [1998],
http://reform.org.uk/resources/media-‐downloads/src/publication/25/title/the-‐what-‐and-‐
why-‐of-‐the-‐reform-‐covenant-‐mark-‐burkill-‐1998 (January 25, 2012).
27 Packer, Identity Problem, 20.
alone.)28
There are a few areas where Packer’s definition is marked by polemicism, in particular in regard to social justice and the charismatic
movement, and these are subtly corrected in Stott’s adaptation of it in his own doctrinal definition.29 Stott stresses regeneration rather than conversion, and thus the ongoing work of the Spirit in the believer, giving an emphasis on the heart rather than rationality.30 Stott’s other correction to Packer’s position, unsurprisingly, given his prominent role in the recovery of evangelical social activism at Keele and Lausanne, is his insistence that evangelism is not the sole primary commitment for evangelicals and that a commitment to social justice is complementary to this.31