Newman's greatest problem is that he generalizes with wild abandon, and his accuracy is compromised for it. He makes every attempt to marginalize the members of the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship (HRCF), Christian Impact (CI), and the Harvard-Radcliffe Asian-American Christian Fellowship (HRAACF) as radical, cultish fundamentalists that reject reason for blind passion, and cites Memorial Church's Reverend Peter Gomes at length for evidence. Of course, most of those whom Newman carelessly labels "evangelicals" would very likely agree with Gomes who, according to Newman, says that "evangelicals find Mem Church far too liturgical and theologically liberal." The problem is that Newman implies constantly that such disagreement is a grievous error in judgment, that Mem Church stands as a pillar of truth despite its lax theology, and that all who depart from it are surely misguided. He apparently fails to question the rationality of those who depart from the doctrine made perfectly clear by the Bible in favor of picking and choosing truths as they please. Furthermore, Newman equates ardent faith by definition with religious zealotry, as if those who believe deeply are in fact deluded. One is unsure as to the source of this excessive skepticism; what is unfortunately sure, however, is that it results in a deep analytical bias from which spring cavalier misrepresentations and unprovoked and unnecessary ad hominem attacks. It would require several pages of newsprint to set straight the facts that Newman skewed, but some warrant particular attention. He includes a mini-profile of Ben Grizzle, who "serves on the board of the Harvard Secular Society" ‹ and this, apparently, qualifies him sufficiently to be Newman's sole source of information about Christian doctrine, though Newman points out that Grizzle lived in New York City and worked for Goldman Sachs, so his authority is undermined, according to Newman. (Does Newman mean to imply that to be a Christian Manhattanite investment banker is inherently and irrevocably inconsistent?) 

Regardless, Newman proceeds to state what he has concluded, through his vast research, to be the basic doctrine of Christianity, yet he does it so irreverently that it is his credibility, not the church's, that is compromised. "It seems straightforward, but it has a couple of catches," he says, in regard to his take on the Christian doctrine. Well, not quite. One would find it nearly, if not totally, impossible, to find a Christian who claims that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and the salvation that comes through his subsequent resurrection are intended exclusively for a few ‹ there simply are no catches. 

What Newman calls catches, then, are subtleties of doctrinal debate or worse, specific aspects of Christianity to which Newman himself bears a personal aversion; he seems to take the "dogma of conversion" as a personal affront to his civil liberties and to suggest that such a doctrine of discipleship and human diversity are mutually exclusive. He holds a double standard for Christians, whom he belittles for lacking a total understanding of the immense doctrine of their faith, while Newman himself has made no effort to understand it and to represent it properly. 

Up to this point in his piece, Newman confines himself to blundering generalizations about a small group of Christians and the tenets of Christianity in general. Unfortunately, he proceeds to wield his unsharpened journalistic axe even more viciously, launching a series of smug, snide attacks on the "evangelical Christians" at Harvard. 

He takes issue with the fact that most of the CI members gathered on the night he visited were "men, almost all white, well-groomed." (Would he prefer more diversity for tokenism's sake? Would he rather see men with beards?) The remainder of his description is rather gratuitous, and he sums up the crowd, saying, "It could just as easily be a meeting of a Dave Matthews Band fan club." The group, recounts Newman, at one point sings what he calls "cheesy, incomprehensible lyrics," the "most telling phrase" of which reads "I find that life is best when my knowledge is less than my faith." Newman punctuates with what he seems to find a particularly pithy afterthought: "Not a sentiment that Prof. Gomes would necessarily be the first to express." 

Perhaps Newman himself would be one of the first to express it, then, for his distaste for the popular tenor of the music is baffling, and his failure (or his unwillingness) to comprehend the significance of the song lyrics he cited is inexplicable. Students who enjoy and regularly listen to contemporary popular music would logically find their most enthusiastic expressions of faith through similar media. Any suggested demarcation of the boundaries between "secular" and "Christian" styles of music is artificial and illogical. 

At this point, Newman's article crumbles into a random pile of unwarrantedly snobbish personal attacks on the leaders of CI and an astounding collection of almost amusingly ridiculous asides. His representation of Park Street Church is woefully inadequate; Newman apparently failed to notice that the very same Park Street Church that he berates by manipulating context to fit his injurious claims, also offers two morning services that would undoubtedly astonish Newman with their reserve and meditative grace. Characterizing Park Street as "academic" is hardly "suspect"; a conversation with senior pastor Gordon Hugenberger would certainly reform Newman"s views. 

After another appallingly derisive account of a visit to an HRCF meeting, Newman attempts to conclude, saying that "the problem is that at a place like Harvard, where logos dominates ethos, evangelicals cannot help but get sucked into a forum of discussion where they cannot possibly win." Newman forgets that when it is writers with agendas that are doing the sucking in and misrepresenting them, no one stands a chance of credibility. 

Indeed, Newman cannot seem to preserve his own, as he devalues his entire piece by asking such questions in his conclusion as, "After all, what would happen if all Jews followed Kathie Lee or if all gay men took the path chosen by Billy Moss? There would be no Woody Allen, no Jerry Seinfeld, no competent hairdressers. Is that really something the evangelicals are willing to deal with?" 

Newman's article is a frustrating and insulting misportrayal of a group that merits more careful and respectful attention. In trying to take on the whole of Christian evangelism, stylistic nuances of evangelistic approaches, and Christian doctrine, Newman has overstepped his limits like one woodcutter attempting to singly fell a great Sequoia. After casting pernicious though ineffectual chips into the trunk of Christianity, he has dropped his axe on his own foot and has nothing more to show for his efforts than a few splinters of intellectualism gone awry.