Dear Christis,

True to your statement of aims, your last issue was, indeed, thought-provoking — congratulations! After mulling over the articles, I decided that I needed to write a long letter in response (hopefully provoking a few more thoughts in the process), since there was only one article which I didn’t find objectionable or misinformed. Ironically, this was Ben Onstoneinn’s Soap Suds, which (after making me grin) reminded me that Christ can, in fact, be found everywhere!

Let me start at the beginning, in every sense. So, Theistic evolution “does nothing but cause dissatisfaction to everyone who has studied either Creation or evolution”? This sweeping comment was just one of several gross generalisations and inaccuracies in Matthew Moxon’s opening article. I have, in fact, studied evolution, and would like to think myself reasonably informed about one of the most important aspects of my life (my faith), yet I am convinced that Theistic evolution is the most likely of the three accounts and believe it to be true.

Matthew’s underlying error is that science and faith “stand on opposing foundations”. I say science, where he spoke of evolution, because the latter is merely one example of scientific methods in practice. Evolution being as valid as any other discipline, criticisms as general as Matthew’s apply equably to all scientific enquiry, since they attack the principles, not the facts. Knowing a little natural history, I cannot accept his glib assertion that “there is no hard proof” to support evolution. True, evolution has not been proved, but science simply doesn’t work that way. Even a superficial knowledge of scientific methods shows that evidence supports — not proves — claims. The fact that evolution undergoes revisions makes it no different from physics, chemistry, or any other aspect of science. So are these all incompatible with scripture, too?

The point that Matthew has completely missed is that science is a descriptive and predictive tool. It says nothing about God. Some scientists say great amounts, and attempt to deny God, but that’s a different story altogether, and no different from Christian fundamentalists denying evolution. It is possible that Matthew was thinking of Materialism, but since this is not a necessary part of science, his article falls wide of this mark. Science tackles the ‘how’ of our universe. Faith explains the ‘why’. Contradictory? Complimentary! And this is precisely the strength of Theistic evolution.

As a last point against this article, I suggests that Matthew retracts his highly offensive accusation that I am calling “the apostles… Christ, and God liars”. I see no difference between rejecting the literal reading of Genesis and accepting that the parables Jesus told were not true stories. As his Bible studies should indicate, allegories were used extensively as an aid to teaching, and they can be loaded with meaning and significance without needing to claim a basis in fact. As for “dismissing” the Fall, Matthew ought to get his facts correct before publication. I, for example, would fully agree with the need for salvation through the Crucifixion — I simply don’t try to shift the blame to some woman called Eve.

Onto the next article. Whilst I applaud Sean Wordingham’s recognition of the need to enlighten Christians about the people they condemn, I cannot agree with either his conclusions or his motives. Does Sean believe that a world without New Age faiths would be a better one? (To call all of these ‘occult’ is, as Matthew also managed, to gloss over the truth in favour of convenience) Think again.

Is Sean really claiming that all Christians obey a good, God-given and absolute moral code that makes them better than ‘occultists’? Let me just mention here the Inquisition, Nazism, and Apartheid, all of which have claimed Biblical justifications. Furthermore, the extension of your ‘Christian absolute, Occult relativist’ argument is that atheists, lacking any spiritual guidance, must have no moral code at all. Surely, then, improving the present situation should involve Christians encouraging atheists to become occultists?

Let me add a personal perspective to this. At various points in my life, I have undergone crises of faith. At such times, it was the spirituality of New Age faiths which gave me the hope and conviction I needed to re-examine my own beliefs. Fundamentalist evangelisation, on the other hand, seemed like a contemptuous and arrogant barrier to be overcome, convincing me that I must be damned because I had difficulty with some of their claims. It was they that kept me away from Christ, and ‘occultists’ who helped me. If Sean’s article had been published and acted on three years ago, I would not now be a Christian. We ought to reconsider New Age faiths seriously, instead of just kicking their support out from under the feet of aspirants to belief.

Andrew Filby’s article was both divisive and impractical. On the one hand stand those whose ‘election’ is, they believe, certain. On the other, those who aren’t so self-assured, who stand, in effect, on the brink of damnation. Had the article had as its theme, ‘here is a way to become more Christ-like’, I would not be worried, but as it stands, the social implications are severe. Faith is not the only reason to believe oneself elected — surely the arrogant will do so too (albeit mistakenly). Having been amongst those scorned and condemned by ‘true’ Christians in the past, I cannot help but flinch at the thought of the people excluded from this elite social group. How, I wonder, will their faith suffer as a consequence of this split?

‘Election’ is also rendered meaningless in any practical sense. How can we ever use the word? Not even once someone is dead can we be sure, since only God can truly know the state of someone’s soul. In effect, to say we are certain someone is elected is to claim God-like knowledge.

As for having confidence in our own election, I remain worried. Andrew may be sure that his faith will never falter and his likeness to Christ always improve, but for us mere mortals the future is uncertain, and all we can do is pray to God that we are not too sorely tested. I am faced with two problems: I was far closer to the Christ-like ideal as a naive child than I am now, and I have found my faith challenged by global disasters, human malice and personal tragedy. Where does this leave me? On the first count alone I fail ‘election’, whilst the second adds the possibility that, although I strive to the contrary, the world may steal my faith away. I am, after all, only human, even if God is with me. What his article has just done is to deny people like myself the very security he set out to offer, and perhaps pronounce me damned. Funnily enough, I am not entirely happy with this conclusion. Once more I have found a reason to look enviously at the love and tolerance shown by New Age faiths. Is this elitism really what Christianity is about?

Furthermore, I found his method for measuring the depth of spiritual sincerity unconvincing and alarmist. I fully agree that “those who truly love God are certain of achieving salvation,” and that those who only pay lip-service are deluding only themselves. But can adopting his method bring any real improvement? If, as he quotes, “the heart is deceitful above all things,” how can we be sure we are sincere when we decide that we have reached “a few... iterations” and conclude that we are, thus, of the elect? None of this is necessary. The thief on the cross never underwent such artificial procedures. In spite of having broken commandments and dying a criminal, he was promised salvation simply for his respect for and love of Christ. Given such a compassionate and understanding Father, I will lose no sleep riddling through this mock-medieval debate. All that is needed is my faith and God’s love, not some algorithm.

Next, a point against Matthew Vogon’s abortion article. Irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with his views on abortion, I cannot hold with his implied views on marriage. Marriage is, as far as I was aware, more than a contract to have babies. Much as I hate to break it to him, sensual and sexual ‘union’ can add to a loving relationship in their own right. Children can too, but apart from a few biological connections, the two factors are unrelated. We were put upon this earth to love, not to spawn. I would agree that improved attitudes towards conception, children, and families in general would be a good thing, but Matthew’s arguments miss the mark: it is a lack of responsibility, not too much sex, that causes problems.

Moreover, the comments that co-habitation dishonours marriage just cannot be reconciled with what marriage really is. As was pointed out in Sean’s article, Christians are not slaves to ritual. Marriage occurs between a couple through the will of God, and the ceremonies we hold are merely the acknowledgment and celebration of this. For exactly the same reasons, arguments about marriage being allowable between homosexuals have very little meaning — it is they who decide that they will marry, and God through whom they are married (if it be His will that they be so). Attempts to prevent them from doing so are purely superficial.

Finally, a comment on the content of Christis . The magazine has, in my eyes, become a flagship for intelligent, original and informative debate. It also has some of best cartoons around (not mine — the ‘proper’ ones!), and usually achieves a stimulating balance between the intellectual, the emotional, and the entertaining. However, I am worried by a trend for highly derivative articles, especially since I found the pieces in question turgid and faltering. Unwieldy quantities of quotations don’t help an argument, and would have been far better expressed through paraphrase. Perhaps reviews of the original material would have been more appropriate?

I hope your readers forgive the length of this letter. It would have been shorter, but I had to meet the submission deadline!

Yours in Christ,

Martin Oliver