I was listening to this talk by Edith Humphrey at the Wheaton College Conference: A Dialogue with N. T. Wright. Her talk is entitled, "Glimpsing the Glory—Paul's Gospel, Righteousness and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright." About five minutes or so into the talk she mentions a fund raising campaign at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary where Humphrey teaches. Pittsburgh is supposed to be a "conservative" and "evangelical" seminary, or as much as that is possible in the PCUSA at least. During the phone campaign one prospective donor said, "When you can tell me the difference between Christ's active and passive obedience, then I will make a donation." Humphrey goes on to portray herself as more "open and tolerant" than the caller who presented a "shibboleth" or test of fellowship. I suppose Humphrey has no shibboleths of her own? Perhaps "tolerance" and "openness" is a shibboleth of Neo-Evangelicalism?
Edith Humphrey who is now an Anglican seems to think the test of Christian fellowship is tolerance, not sound doctrine. This is what is wrong with Anglicanism and with broad Evangelicalism. What we need is a return to polemical and dogmatic theology centered on sola Scriptura, not reason exalted above both Scripture and tradition. Scripture is the final shibboleth by which we test doctrine. Therefore, the active and passive obedience of Christ is a doctrinal shibboleth because it is taught in Scripture and is therefore is binding doctrine.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.