Elizabeth Rawlings recently wrote an article, titled “How to be a Christian without being a jerk about it,” in which she points out some traits in the Christian Church that she believes we would all be better without. For the most part, I agree with her and find it an excellent article. There are a few points she raises that I have a bit of contention with, though.
Points 1-3: Oh, with the judging and the shaaaaaming
I include these three as one point, as both of the first two are encapsulated by the third. Simply put, “stop talking about Hell” and “stop speaking the truth in love” are more succinctly covered by the title of point number 3:
STOP WITH THE JUDGING ALREADY – Elizabeth Rawlings
While this sentiment is trumpeted with gusto in the streets of America like a soothing balm for the soul, there’s an inherent problem if it’s misunderstood; when Jesus called us not to judge, lest we be judged, we cannot actually believe that He meant we were not to make any moral judgments. First of all, that would be hypocritical, as the act of claiming that we should not make judgments is in itself a moral judgment. Second of all, as Rawlings rightly points out, we are to see the “brokenness and aches” of a person as a call to love that person, but here’s the more fundamental question: from where did this brokenness come? The adulterous woman’s inherent problem wasn’t her adultery; that was a symptom of mankind’s fallen nature. Her real problem was separation from God.
In using this Biblical illustration, Rawlings has actually modeled the “speak truth in love” approach that she vocally deplores. Seeing the woman in the hands of a self-righteous mob, Jesus didn’t say, “Well, really, what she did is totally fine, guys. Calm down.” He acknowledged the woman’s sin, then used her sin to magnify the sins of the group as a whole. He was not saying that there is no such thing as sin, or that we should view sin as acceptable. He was saying that, despite people’s sins, we are to love them. Surely, we can agree on that.
Point 5: Evolution=Science, and ur so dum for not seeing that
Let’s think about this, shall we? The idea is that science and scripture are compatible. This is true; science seeks to understand the Truth of God’s design through the natural world. There is nothing ignoble about wanting to examine the wonders of God’s creative prowess. the fact remains, however, that there are serious objection to the plausibility of the Darwinian Evolutionary Paradigm’s ability to adequately answer the question of the origin of life and humanity. Mathematics (See the work of atheist Fred Hoyle) militates against the purely random generation of life from non-life, which in turn would severely weaken the plausibility of macro-evolution’s status as Pure Scientific Enlightenment Incarnate. There are more evidences to be discussed, but let’s leave the discussion at this: it’s a bit of a reach to push everyone who has problems with macro-evolution into a category of people that is making the country fall behind in test scores.
And yes, the Earth is way more than 6,000 years old. You have got to listen to Rawlings on this one. I’ll talk about why this is the case elsewhere, but think of this: all the evidence in God’s creation combined with every measurement tool we have suggest an old universe. Claiming otherwise makes God out to be misleading and dishonest in his general revelation to humanity at large. If the entire universe is only 6,000 years old, God is sending us mixed messages on a truly astronomical scale.
Other than these little points of concern and the *GASP* swearing at the end, it’s a good read. Check it out, for sure.