Dear Sir,
My fear is that something very troubling is happening in evangelicalism.
We see our faith under increasing misrepresentation and abuse by our secular society and it is grievous to see the same thing happening among Christians. We see true believers wounding one another in unnecessary civil wars. We are of course called to ‘contend for the truth’ and to be intolerant of any teaching which threatens the gospel itself, but my concern is how that call is interpreted, and how it is acted upon. There is a world of difference between a different understanding of an inerrant Bible and a denial of that inerrancy.
The church has always been made up of people who did not agree on every detail, and that is hardly surprising when we remember that we are sinful, limited beings contemplating the truth of our infinite God. Only a few of these differences have been so serious that separation has occurred.
The Puritan, Thomas Scott wrote: ‘I believe there are many things unscriptural among us all; that is, either defective, redundant, or erroneous: but human nature is very fallible; ten thousand circumstances produce prejudices, which warp the judgment; and the Lord seems to illuminate his people but in part. There must therefore be differences of opinion.’
I remember a time when some of the issues which are spoken and written about today in such black-and-white terms were discussed amicably, thoughtfully, and with no accusations of ‘not believing the Bible’. Today, Christians do not speak much of their ‘opinions’ or ‘persuasions’ but of their ‘positions’. The latter is a military metaphor; the ‘position’ is a defensive base where soldiers can dig in, and from where they can launch attacks on the enemy’s ‘positions’– and that is exactly what we see today so often in evangelicalism. I am asking, how many of these disputed subjects are so vital and clear that we must speak in terms of attack and defence? ‘Truth’ is not synonymous with my (or my group’s) understanding; we need to hear one another. I have to refrain from giving specific examples because I fear my case will be proved by claims that such and such is an absolutely fundamental issue: ‘The Bible is quite clear’, etc. I do not want to start a particular hare running; I am not concerned here with the actual issues but with the conduct of debate.
As Jeremiah Burroughs said: ‘Articles of religion for doctrine and practice in matters of religion to be imposed upon man, should be as few as maybe; there is very great danger in the unnecessary multiplying them. This in all ages has caused division and exceeding disturbances in the churches of Christ.’
As James said: ‘From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so’ (James 3:10).
Yours faithfully,
Brian Mitchell, St Austell
