Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 13, 2012

Home > 2009 > October (Web-Only)Christianity Today, October (Web-Only), 2009
Alec Hill Responds
The president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on "Not All Evangelicals and Catholics Together."




I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Christianity Today's article, "Not All Evangelicals and Catholics Together." In particular, I want to address the concern—raised by a relatively small group of fellow believers—that Intervarsity may have watered down its view of justification in order to become more inclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

InterVarsity's Ethos

Since 1941, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA has been bringing the Gospel to campuses across America. Our 859 chapters reach out to non-believing students and faculty, develop leaders and equip graduates to pursue God's purposes in the world.

Our purpose has remained unaltered for seven decades. InterVarsity has always been, and will continue to be, unapologetically both evangelical and transdenominational. Our vision is to call students and professors from every church tradition—and those with no faith background at all—to be transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Our mission field is broad. It includes pagans, Presbyterians and Pentecostalists. It includes Buddhists, Baptists and Brethren. It includes agnostics, Anglicans and Assemblies (of God). And, yes, it includes Catholics too.

InterVarsity believes that Jesus is Lord of the university world. This commitment has placed us on the front line of the faith/culture divide. In recent years, several of our chapters—including those at Rutgers, Wisconsin, Tufts and Grinnell—have been derecognized by university administrators because of our stands on sexual holiness and Christian orthodoxy.

We are thankful for our many alumni who serve in the church, the marketplace and the public sector. A small sample includes Dallas Willard (author/professor), Tim Keller (pastor/author), Gary Haugen (International Justice Mission) and Mike McIntyre (US Congressman).

Doctrinal Basis

Our Doctrinal Basis states that we "believe in justification by God's grace to all who repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation." This sentence is wholly biblical and thoroughly evangelical. No amount of good works can lead to salvation. We are saved by grace alone. Period.

The full Doctrinal Basis may be found at intervarsity.org/aboutus/doctrine.php. I strongly encourage you to read it. It represents a significant upgrade from its 1941 predecessor (also posted) which ironically—given the current conversation—was less robust on the doctrine of justification. Also ironic is the fact that staff from Reformed traditions were instrumental in the redrafting process. The result: a marvelous summation of God's sovereignty and grace that several evangelical ministries have adopted it as their own.

In recent years, we have been chided by some on the liberal end of the theological spectrum for references in our Doctrinal Basis to "God's wrath," "judgment due sinners," and "eternal condemnation." But this is the first time that I have heard concerns coming from the other side of the continuum.

It is also important to note that InterVarsity is one of 150 indigenous national student movements federated under the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES). With conviction, we affirm IFES' faith statement—"the justification of the sinner by the grace of God through faith alone."

Finally, the article makes reference to a Bear Trap faith statement. I had never heard of it before the departing George Washington University students raised it as a concern. Apparently, in 1960, a group of staff drafted the document. It was never adopted by our board. As early as 1969—when two of my current vice presidents joined InterVarsity—it was not mentioned during new staff orientation. Very few or our staff today are even aware of its existence.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 18 comments

Anon

November 02, 2009  4:32pm

I have some concerns about Alec Hill's response. He says: "We publish a wide variety of books—including N.T. Wright's Justification—because we are deeply committed to stimulating evangelically-rooted conversations that increase fidelity to Scripture." This seems to say that a view of justification that is essentially faith plus works is still "evangelically rooted". The point of this conversation is really: what is an evangelical? That cannot be answered without first defining what the "evangel" is. If justification by faith alone is at the heart of the gospel, then intervarsity is playing with fire to allow any ambiguity on it. I hesitate to say this, but from his response, it doesn't appear to be at the heart of Alec Hill's gospel: "At times, I am more comfortable with Wright; at times more with Piper." He seems to be implying that scripture is not that clear on justification, so as long as people are claiming fidelity to scripture, it's still evangelical. Did I miss something?

Paul Burnett

November 02, 2009  2:38pm

Okay, John, I'll be generous and grant you ONE paper has been published, albeit under a cloud and in a very minor journal. So what? If intelligent design creationism was actually science instead of pseudoscience, would you think there would be more than ONE paper? (Remember, only papers with the term "intelligent design" in the title or the body count.) So what's number two, John?

John H. Guthrie

November 02, 2009  2:27pm

Paul, I tried to reply to you this weekend, but my comments would not go through. The opponents of ID perpetuate the myth that the Meyer paper was snuck through the peer-review process, but the written record refutes this. The then-President of the Biological Society of Washington which published the article wrote this to a colleague concerning the editorial process:"I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs. a vis the review process..." This document can be found in an appendix to a report of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Government Reform, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=downlo ad&id=1490 , scroll down to page 72. I would suggest you check your facts before repeating the misleading propaganda of ID opponents.

bobxxxx

October 31, 2009  11:36am

Your well known ID proponents as Dembski and Behe are well known because they are compulsive liars. By the way, intelligent design means supernatural magic. Magic is not science, and you sir need to grow up.

Paul Burnett

October 30, 2009  9:04pm

John Guthrie wrote: "Dr. Steven Meyer published "The Origins of Biological Information..." And that' s it - ONE article, snuck through the normal process and which the publisher retracted because it did not meet actual scientific standards. Intelligent design creationists have been flogging the story of this article for five years now, fomenting the hoax that it proves that they are persecuted by the scientific community. Well, yes, they are - just as proponents of the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the theory of geocentrism, or perpetual motion machines are "persecuted" - because they're wrong. Astrology is not science, and neither is intelligent design creationism. And it's pitiful to note that Meyer's article cites Dembski and Behe - Behe has been disavowed by his fellow scientists (see http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm ) and Dembski's latest book is titled "The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World" - is this science or religion?

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper

Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Kyria.com
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com