Dear Christis,

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Tom Duckers’ article entitled, The Relevance of Evangelicalism by arguing that not only is evangelicalism highly misguided but that it poses serious dangers to the spiritual development and the spiritual security of its adherents.

The most blatant difference between the evangelical and the liberal is that the latter maintains a determination to make up his own mind in regards to his beliefs whereas the former experiences a need for rigidity and uncompromising dogma. Certainly this is understandable as it is always a great comfort to be in possession of clear beliefs which are shared in their entirety by others; thus establishing a sort of religious communal ethnicity. From this it can be seen why some people seem to like being told what to believe. However, the danger is that they then, like well behaved sheep, despise and suppress dissidence of any kind whilst seemingly forgetting that every non Catholic Christian owes a tremendous debt to one of the greatest rebels of all time, namely Martin Luther.

Although the fact that there are so many Churches and cult groups with a spiritual leader telling the congregation what to think and what to believe may have the positive effect of making people feel safe and secure, it is also likely to have the entirely negative effect of stifling creativity, development and free thought, the very ideals upon which a living and growing religion needs to survive. The whole notion of stifling free thought is evidential of the authoritarian nature of evangelicalism. Yet for anyone to cede away their natural craving for deeper spiritual awareness in return for a cold and limited set of religious principles it to give away part of their greater freedom and perhaps also an aspect of their humanity.

If all this sounds rather dramatic then it is worthwhile recalling Tom Duckers’ grave assertion that “a person who dies without having trusted Christ will face judgement, condemnation and everlasting punishment”. Such a believe can never be reconciled with the concept of a loving God. Furthermore, if we are to accept that God is omniscient then we must also accept that, knowing full well that his created man would rebel against him from the outset, he deliberately caused men to suffer the atrocity of eternal divine retribution. Again, this stands in marked contrast to a belief in a compassionate deity. Although many people find dissent to be very threatening, it can also be a wonderful relief to have someone in authority proclaiming that salvation does not depend upon a belief in, for example, the virgin birth, the miracle stories or the physical resurrection. Scripture is often unclear and in need of interpretation. Far from being “a collection of flowing narratives and arguments” (as Tom Duckers argues), the Gospels are more realistically, a collage of pericopae, that is isolated sayings of Jesus which are intertwined with the specific arguments of the Gospel writers. They were used by the Early Church in order to preach, to teach, to convert and to defend their faith. Simply to assume that their purpose and meaning is exactly the same today as it was in first century Palestine is unbelievably naive.

For any Christian to claim that the Bible is nothing less than the unquestionable word of God and therefore above human understanding, is to apply an unnecessary limitation upon their own faith. An open and questioning mind can bring about a far greater understanding of the Christian message and a far deeper love of God than can a closed one. True Christianity must always come from within. It must be founded upon love and be inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Christian message as found in the gospels, but it should never be limited to a literal interpretation of Scripture (a flawed collection of true stories, myths, legends, poetry and prophecy). The importance of love is paramount to a Christian faith. We can, after all, only know Jesus through love, and yet there exists in the world, far too much hatred which manifests itself not only in the godless (which is understandable), but also in the “godly” (which is far less understandable and considerably more disturbing). It was a lack of human compassion and love that led to Christianity being used to justify slavery, the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals.

Although I accept that evangelicalism need not be charismatic, I would insist that the link between the two is undeniable. We are told to worship God in body, mind and spirit and certain evangelical churches (in the charismatic tradition) certainly maximise the use of the body (any trip to St Michael le Belfrey will confirm this), and as I would never question the faith of any member of any such church, I accept that spiritually they are very much ‘alive’. However, the greatest problem with an Evangelical faith is that it is cerebrally weak since it relies entirely upon blind subservience. The notion of ‘coming to God as a little child’ can easily be taken too far whilst charismatic songs which often encourage an understanding of Christ that appears to be erotic in its foundation, lead me to deduce a shallowness of spiritual awareness.

True spiritual awareness and a true love of God are enhanced by an open mind, a questioning nature and most importantly, genuine human compassion. It is for these reasons that to have one’s faith grounded in the Bible alone is to have a shallow faith that ultimately can inflict more harm than good.

Carey Chambers