Following my series on the Introduction to the T4G statement (see 42: A4G: Summary of Introduction) I am now starting on the individual articles. So here are my thoughts on Article I of the T4G statement.
Useful to remember that James Smith would not have been recognised by many Churches of the day as having a right to preach or have leadership in the Church. Yet the Church has re-evaluated scripture and now recognises the wrong that was done in the past. The T4G statement specifically repents of the injustice done to African-Americans in the name of the gospel in article XVII.
Yet the same Christians that recognise this wrong understanding of the Bible from the past now insist that their similar understanding regarding the role of women is not flawed.
How long before we can all rewrite Article XVI in the light of Article XVII (in the T4G statement).
What is an evangelical? is an interesting post giving a very different understanding to that posited by the T4G group. It particularly focuses on the way that fundamentalism and evangelical are not one and the same.
For what it is worth, my own view is that "penal substitution" is one way to understand the cross and atonement. However, both historically and currently it is not the only understanding and given our limitations I do not believe it alone can be a full understanding.