On "The Christians Making Atheists"

On The Christians Making Atheists

The original article by John Pavlovitz can be found here: https://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/06/04/the-christians-making-atheists/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=John+Pavlovitz&fbclid=IwAR32-mxGQDqCuVf-4CvjiazxyBtuTGir14m8f2xb-d1PatBg5Y-Ajn7GQGQ

I read this article. While after college (a Christian college at that,) I walked away from my faith for a few years, I was drawn back to my faith, by I believe, the Holy Spirit.

So I can see his argument. I can see how rejecting the faith of youth is in a manner of speaking, part of our distancing from our parents and growing and separating ourselves from that identity.

However, I have some issues with the article. To me, they are glaring.

Pavlovitz gets a number of things wrong. First is his definition of faith. To reflect the character and love of Jesus is not faith. Faith is the hope and belief in God, and (to me) his son and my savior Jesus. It is not a standard of living. It is not some outward display, or some attempt to sway others. It is not a list of codified rules, which was one of the reasons I felt dissatisfied after my college experience. While the list he defines as faith are part of the Christian experience, they are *NOT* faith.

He gets it wrong again, and this is part of 21^st century philosophy. “People outside the Church will tell you: love is no longer our calling card. It is now condemnation, bigotry, judgment and hypocrisy.” The problem is his definition of love. What is love? That you agree with me completely and unequivocally on all my views and have no dissent in any form, shape or fashion. If you don’t, you are a bigot. A racist. A fascist. A transphobic, homophobic, ethnocentric, Islamophic, misogynistic, white male jerk.

So if I were to say that I disagree with the redefinition of words in order to promote a certain idea or ideas that would squarely place me in the bad category. Really? How dare you think differently than that which is espoused on social media! How dare I indeed. 

Pavlovitz goes on. “People outside the Church will tell you: love is no longer our calling card. It is now condemnation, bigotry, judgment and hypocrisy.” By the definition of whom? This is what the media is saying. Indeed, I would counter, this is what the world is saying. And this is to an extent, what the public is buying. That does not necessarily make it true. While I freely admit that our society has become very spoiled in its demand for instant gratification and this is true in the Christian community as well, one thing I do affirm: Christ in me, the hope of glory. 

“With its … constant venom toward diversity, it is giving people no alternative but to conclude, that based on the evidence of people professing to be Godly—that God is of little use. In fact, this God may be toxic.” I believe what Dr. Martin Luther King believed, in that people should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. People are just people. That’s it. There will be no skin color or race in heaven. I contend, and this may be a shocker, but if the people who advocate diversity were honest and true in their beliefs, they would ask for, no, they would demand that all public and private institutions in the US reflect the population. Therefore, 49% of the NBA and NFL would be Caucasian, 24% would be Hispanic, 13% would be African American, 8% would be Asian and the rest would be multiracial or other. That is not happening there or other places. It only occurs in groups where an advantage is given to certain classes. How about just giving the job or position to the best people qualified, regardless of heritage, class or gender?

Also, God is of little use? God is toxic? I wonder where the origin of this thought comes from. (Here is a hint, I do not believe it comes from man.) 

“With every persecution of the LGBTQ community….” This I agree with whole heartedly, especially in cases of job security and physical injury. However, calling marriage a civil union or refusing to create art that abides by a philosophy the artist does not follow does not rise to meet the standard of persecution. 

“…with every unprovoked attack on Muslims…” Pavlovitz did not have time to google Islamist terror attacks per year. Any citation of grief by one part must be accompanied by an objective view of what group is responsible for a ridiculous number of terror attacks, murders, honor killings and suicide bombings. Yes, I firmly agree and hate that the mosque in New Zealand was the target of a zealot. I hate that those families lost loved ones. I hate it. That does not mean I use blinders to shield my eyes from what is happening in the rest of the world in order to promote a viewpoint.

“Meanwhile the celebrity preachers and professional Christians publicly beat their breasts about the multitudes walking away from God….” Celebrity preachers certainly get the most exposure. I understand that thoroughly. Heck, I was part of it. Remember the mid 80’s? The Moral Majority? I was there, front and center. I even went to the Baptist Fundamentalism ’84 convention where Ronald Reagan was the keynote speaker. But I have a question: what percentage of pastors in the US are celebrity preachers? Further, what about the rest of them, Pavlovitz? Are you not using the Creflo Dollars of the world to paint all other pastors in a negative light? This sounds to me like something familiar. Something the left is supposed to stand against. I wonder what it could be. (I no longer consider myself Baptist or fundamentalist, but rather a simple, rather flawed, kinda messed up Charlie Brown Christian. I do not have room to judge others with so much on my own plate, but ideas, unlike people, are fair game.) 

“No, the reason the Church soon will be teetering on the verge of extinction and irrelevance, will be because those entrusted to perpetuate the love of Jesus in the world, lost the plot so horribly, and gave the world no other option but to look elsewhere for goodness and purpose and truth.” Wrong again, although there is some truth to the spoiled nature of the people of our age. Here are two thoughts with which I will conclude. 1. “God's power and majesty is constant, occurring day after day and night after night. Humans are constantly reminded of God's existence” –Don Stewart. Nature itself speaks of God’s existence. To replace Creator with creation is in error. While life grants both pain and joy, to use pain (in Pavlovitz’s and in my case, pain from experience in organized religion) as an excuse to claim God does not exist is a misplaced ascription. 2. From Matthew 24 ^“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Scripture prophecies that man will fall away from God in the last days. This is *exactly* what we see happening. This is not occurring so that doom may befall all, but that the love of God, which is greater than any words may describe or minds comprehend, might be seen in a greater light. From A Golconda Story: “When the darkness of our lives threatens to consume us, the light of love shines out all the more clearly.”