Why Nathan Left Christianity

# on 09 Sep 2008
Letters from Leavers

Comments (34)

Related Posts

• Help! My Pastor Says Theology Makes People Feel Dumb
• Why George Left the Faith
• The Day God Went Left and I Went Right
• Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
• Leaving Christianity for all the Wrong Reasons

34 Responses to “Why Nathan Left Christianity”

1. David on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:25 pm #

   Wow, quite a story!

   I see this trend more and more with folks who grew up in legalistic settings. Recently I had a looong conversation at Taco Bell with a 29 year old youth pastor who recently left his faith. His story sounded very similar in these respects:
   a) prayer doesn’t work and Holy Spirit doesn’t seem present.
   b) Christians aren’t “real” or are hypocrites.
   c) Christian education in a legalistic setting…in his situation it was Pensacola which I don’t know much about but he made it sound like a prison.
   d) He occasionally slipped back into his old Christian worldview especially with regards to morality and fairness. You could literally see his Christian thinking struggling to compete with his new found skepticism.

   I think Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic is an effective way to share with this type of person. I’m no expert, but it basically involves:

   1) Actually listening to the person’s story in complete detail and not interrupting with counter examples or defense

   2) Once you have established the person’s current worldview, gently point out internal inconsistencies between their beliefs and the way they actually live. For instance, if I don’t believe in God but have an objective view of moralilty…there is an inconsistency that needs to be accounted for.

   3) Present Biblical Christianity as the consistent way to look at life. Living in accordance with the beliefs of Christianity doesn’t promise immediate gratification, but it does afford a basis for examining the suffering and a hope with which to motivate the pursuit of improvement. This of course is Nathan’s problem: “I just wanted life to make sense!”

   I am proud of Nathan for sharing his true reasons for leaving the faith. Many prefer to masquerade popular skeptical arguments in their defense the reasons they left are completely different. At least with Nathan, a caring Christian can actually work with him to unravel his false ideas about both the Christian and non-Christian worldview.

   Thanks for sharing his story Michael.

2. Ranger on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:45 pm #

   This story is very sad, because I’ve seen others go through this same path. I know that fundamental Baptist churches and schools mean good, but they are so frequently dangerous to young people by fearing to confront the culture and refusing to answer tough question or take difficult challenges seriously.

   Here are Nathan’s main three reasons for leaving and my short response:

   1. He saw Christianity as only being about eternity and realized that if this life is all we have then he should value it. My private response would be, “Why did Christianity ever jettison its focus on life here and now?” My public response would be more akin to mentioning that the vast majority of the Bible is about life now, with only glimpses of the life to come. God made this earth and people on this earth out of His love. It’s not as though the “this life” experiment of God was a failed plan and he’s just using it temporarily so that he can scrap it all once people are in heaven and hell. That type of escapist theology, which it appears Nathan grew up in, and is common in the types of churches and schools he mentioned, is simply unbiblical. As Christians we live abundant lives now, enjoying God’s creation and gifts. Yes, someday the pain and suffering of now will be made right at the resurrection, but that doesn’t diminish the life we have now.

   2. He read the Bible with a critical eye. That’s not a bad thing, as we can learn a lot more by reading with a critical eye. There are great scholars who have studied the Bible in this manner and come away with a greater respect and love for God and how He shaped His word. It’s the conclusions of Nathan’s critical look at the Bible with which I disagree. He says, “Contrary to fundamentalist beliefs, the bible promotes many hideous acts: genocide, sacrificing children, raping women, slavery, incest, etc.” This is simply not true. I would argue that not only are they not promoted, they are not even condoned (except genocide). Sure, the Bible includes many descriptions of these acts, even by some of its biggest figures, but how does recounting the story translate to it being promoted? If anything, these stories make me trust the Bible more. As someone who has studied many legendary accounts from the Ancient Near East, let me say that if these stories were simply legendary stories they would not include all of the negatives in their heroes. It’s the beauty of the Bible IMO that shows its heroes as human…mistakes and all. Now, in regards to genocide, I disagree that the Bible promotes it as an end in itself. It condones it in a few particular, specific situations (most notably Joshua) as a specific type of judgment. These are not new Scriptures and Jews and Christians have studied them every bit as intently as you have for thousands of years. Evangelicals respond in different ways. Two recent discussions on two opposite ends of evangelicalism have been blogged about recently. On one end, Greg Boyd and the other (which I’m more in line with) Kim Riddlebarger. A google search can find their websites. Of course, in the New Covenant in Christ, none of these are either promoted or condoned, but instead are all explicitly condemned. Therefore, whereas this might be a challenge for someone raised in a strict form of fundamentalism inclined to sweep these types of questions under the rug, they are not challenges to traditional, orthodox Christianity by any means and have been seriously dealt with thousands of times over the past two thousand years.

   3. He saw Christianity as opposed to evolution. Sure, Christians are internally split over this issue, but there are some outside of Christianity who are split over it as well. The only reason evolution would be a defeater of Christianity would be if it was in opposition to it, which it simply is not. From the earliest days of evolutionary theory, there have been conservative, evangelical Christians who accepted it without seeing any conflict with their faith. One fine example is B.B. Warfield. Today, there are many conservative, evangelical Christian scientists and theologians who see no conflict (Polkinghorne, Lennox, Collins, McGrath, OT scholars at Wheaton, Regent, Gordon-Conwell, etc.). There are also many who see the earth as being very old, developing primarily by evolution, but also having occasional times where God stepped in to further his design (ala many intelligent design advocates). There are also some who believe the earth is just as old as you say, but that God has stepped in many times to create (ala Hugh Ross). Really, even in America, it is only a section of Christians theologians and people in the pew who hold to the view that the earth is only 6,000 to 25,000 years old, as I’m sure Nathan was taught as fact.

   I think there is a fourth reason though, which is not as clearly stated. Nathan discusses his struggles at Liberty as being confused about the apparent conflict between a type of Christian living that he had been raised to believe and the type of living he saw among friends. Of course, on one level, the type of Christianity he had been raised to believe was clearly wrong and legalistic. On the other hand, it’s a good point because it focuses on the hypocrisy of Christians. Of course, hypocrisy in others, as frustrating as it may be, is no defeater of Christianity. Hypocrits are in all of our churches, no matter how fundamentalist, conservative, mainline, liberal, progressive, etc. we are. The reality is that we are sinful and naturally want to turn away from the way we know is right. We have a radical tendency to rebel, and as such, it is a challenge to fight these natural inclinations and submit to the lordship of Christ in all of our actions. As the body of Christ, we should strive to end this hypocrisy in ourselves and in the body as a whole. We must be willing to help others through these struggles with hypocrisy, realizing that we are just as prone to it.

3. From The Balcony on 09 Sep 2008 at 8:08 pm #

   This is a sad story but I don’t think God is done with this young man yet His last statement gives me a clue. He stated, “Yet, it provides a tremendous opportunity to see the world for what it really is. ”

   If he is seeing the world for what it really is, then he won’t be able to see it without God in it because Rom 1:20 reminds us that “For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.” I hope he will look at the world, because when he does - and when his clouded vision starts to clear from the baggage he was raised with, God’s face will peek through.

   I say — God isn’t done yet

4. Jeffrey on 09 Sep 2008 at 9:23 pm #

   David wrote: “Once you have established the person’s current worldview, gently point out internal inconsistencies between their beliefs and the way they actually live.”

   That’s from The God Who is There, and perhaps other books of his as well. I was still a Christian when I read it (fall 2006), but I spotted the flaw nonetheless.

   Just read Romans 7:14-25. If Christians alone have an inspired book containing moral guidance, if Christians alone have the Holy Spirit, and if Christians alone have a rational basis for objective morality, how strange it is that even Paul must apologize for not living like it.

   Christians simply do not live according to their presuppositions, and thus should not expect to get apologetic mileage out of this weakness in anyone else. Following moral standards without a rational basis is an inconsistency much less severe than truly believing in eternity and spending a moment living for this life.

   To use Schaeffer’s approach requires explaining how the forces helping a Christian are weak enough to allow for Christians living lives no different from anyone else, and still strong enough to be worth anything at all. That’s quite the tightrope.

   I used the implications of Schaeffer’s approach as motivation to live the kind of life necessary to use it, but ultimately, the argument itself failed.

5. David on 09 Sep 2008 at 10:05 pm #

   Hi Jeffrey,

   Christianity is built on the principal that people cannot meet God’s requirements and thus require grace.

   That being said, is it your position that Christian’s are being inconsistent with their worldview when they sin?

6. Jeffrey on 09 Sep 2008 at 10:41 pm #

   That is my position. Whenever you as a Christian observe another Christian sin, the fact that a Christian just sinned is 100% consistent with your worldview. But whenever you sin, this is an action that is inconsistent with your worldview.

   “Christians don’t believe in hell, if I believed in hell I would crawl over 1000 miles of broken glass to tell one person.” This reverses Schaeffer’s argument by pointing out the ways in which Christians’ beliefs differ from their actions, with the intent of showing how Christianity is a philosophy with which people cannot live.

7. Joe P on 09 Sep 2008 at 10:50 pm #

   The reason I won’t have laser surgery. If I lost or ruined my vision, as some have (and it’s not an insignificant number, though many don’t know much about the downside and dangers), it would definitely lead to major depression.

   That said, there is too little about Nathan and too much regurgitating standard atheist/skeptic arguments to seriously respond to this without more information.

8. Truth Unites... and Divides on 09 Sep 2008 at 11:05 pm #

   Parable of the Soils?

   If so, which soil was Nathan?

9. David on 09 Sep 2008 at 11:08 pm #

   Jeffrey,

   Thanks for clarifying.

   I would disagree with this statement : “But whenever you sin, this is an action that is inconsistent with your worldview.”

   Even though you addressed your example to me, I think the point your are trying to make is that Christians are wrong to judge others by a different standard than themselves. I would certainly agree with you there.

   I encourage non-Christians to press me to be more internally consistent; that kind of criticism benefits any position. Every Sunday pastors spend a lot of time bringing out the meaning of the text - why? So Christians can be more consistent with their worldview.

   Regarding your quote - are these your own words?

   I don’t think you can assign an arbitrary condition for consistency and then point out failure to satisfy your condition. If I said “Atheists don’t believe in God so they should go around killing babies; but they are inconsistent since they don’t” would you consider that valid? Of course not.

   Now don’t get me wrong, Schaeffer was aware of the tension in his own worldview. He had a crisis of faith in his later years. Christians can be approached with the apologetic Schaeffer used to make them better Christians.

   Also please don’t confuse these 2 statements:

   1, Christianity is an internally consistent philosophy
   2. Christianity is a philosophy with which people can live

   Your statement about hell assumes that God doesn’t have any control over who goes to heaven/hell. I would simply disagree personally though many Christians do hold that position.

   Cheers,
   David

10. Jeffrey on 10 Sep 2008 at 12:04 am #

    David: “Regarding your quote - are these your own words?”

    No. Years ago, I watched a video in which a Christian used it in quotation of a skeptic for motivational purposes, but I could not name either person.

    David: “Also please don’t confuse these 2 statements:

    1. Christianity is an internally consistent philosophy
    2. Christianity is a philosophy with which people can live”

    I remember Schaeffer’s criticism of alternatives being that they fail the latter test. Similarly, you recommended that Christians “gently point out internal inconsistencies between their beliefs and the way they actually live.” This is an argument that alternatives to Christianity fail the latter test. So I replied that Christianity also fails the latter test.

    David: “Your statement about hell assumes that God doesn’t have any control over who goes to heaven/hell.”

    No, it assumes that humans have at least some influence in the outcome (although, you probably disagree with this weaker statement as well.) Furthermore, even if the outcome is chosen by God, if Christians are to be rewarded in heaven for eternity based in part on their heart for the unsaved, the same argument applies by appealing to rational self-interest rather than compassion.

11. David on 10 Sep 2008 at 12:57 am #

    Jeffrey,

    I agreed with you that Christians do not always live consistently with their beliefs; I have already stated that I find internal critique beneficial for any side on an issue. I also said I think Schaeffer’s apologetic can be used to make believers into better Christians. Where is our disagreement on that, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you?

    Schaeffer’s process moves on after this internal critique (step 2) to step 3: Present Biblical Christianity as the consistent way to look at life.

    Notice I didn’t say that Christianity was a belief system with which humans can perfectly align their lives. That makes an assertion about human ability not the belief system itself. Christianity revolves around the fact that people mess up on a regular basis and must rely on God daily for support and guidance. But, Christianity does contain a consistent set of propositions that don’t contradict, and which has a self-sustaining foundation for metaphysics and epistemology (the aseity of God, etc..) The Christian worldview maintains its consistency regardless of my adherence to it.

    So we have:
    a) A belief system that is consistent
    b) A person who consistently adheres to his belief system with respect to thinking, action , etc..

    I think Schaeffer sought to demonstrate that Christianity has a) and the non-Christian does not have a).

    Even though both parties may lack b), it is really only a platform to talk about a).

    When any person realizes that they are not consistent with their worldview, it is a discouragement. Christians strive to be consistent, but many worldviews simply afford no motivation to do such a thing. Indeed, to be consistent with some worldviews would involve logical contradictions so the task is impossible in those cases.

12. Jeffrey on 10 Sep 2008 at 1:43 am #

    David: “Even though both parties may lack b), it is really only a platform to talk about a).”

    That’s what was missing. Of course, I disagree regarding internal consistency, but that wasn’t ever the point I was critiquing.

    You have explained yourself.

13. Kevin Davis on 10 Sep 2008 at 4:25 am #

    The kid is right about one thing: Evolution is fact. It’s not going anywhere. Fortunately, most Christians have been able to see that Genesis 1-2 teaches theological truth, not scientific truth. It is Creationist nonsense which results in far too many evangelicals losing their faith when they get to college and discover that their science professors aren’t rabid atheists bent on distorting the evidence.

14. Truth Unites... and Divides on 10 Sep 2008 at 4:33 am #

    And there are lots of professing Christians who apostasized because they believe that evolution is a “fact”.

15. B. Minich on 10 Sep 2008 at 6:20 am #

    The sad thing here is that Nathan didn’t understand the center of the Christian faith. This statement is what makes me think that:

    “As for me, wasn’t I sinning against God by not making him #1?”

    Well, yes. But that’s why there’s a gospel - for lost sinners like us who, no matter how hard we TRY, cannot make God #1. This is why legalism is so dangerous - if a church is legalistic, they stop teaching their people the gospel, and you end up with a works-centered approach that says “if they aren’t making God #1, they must not be saved”. By the grace of God, we will be able to fight that tendency, but that doesn’t make it go away, or mean that any Christian who has trouble putting God first isn’t a true believer.

    I can only pray that this changes.

16. Ranger on 10 Sep 2008 at 7:31 am #

    Wow,
    “Truth Unites…” you are willing to say that belief in evolution equals apostasy? I’d love to hear a biblical defense of this argument, especially in light of the robust, orthodox faith of a growing group of Christians who believe in theistic evolution. For instance, would you be willing to say that Alistair McGrath apostasized?

    If you think the two are inconsistent, that’s one thing. But to suggest apostasy…well that’s just extreme isn’t it?

17. clearblue on 10 Sep 2008 at 7:49 am #

    Kevin Davis writes: ‘The kid is right about one thing: Evolution is fact’.

    Sorry, Kevin, but that is not really a rational argument. It neither presents any evidence or logical argument - it simply asserts something without any reason.

    It is similar to the other sorts of brow-beating commonly used by evolution-believers: e.g. ‘Evolution is accepted universally by scientists’. Science should not parrot such logical fallacies as the appeal to authority and the ipse dixit.

    We don’t live in the Middle Ages anymore when priests could impose their beliefs on other people using this sort of authoritarianism.

    Why should I believe you when you make such a statement?

18. Another one bites the dust on 10 Sep 2008 at 7:59 am #

    “First. I read the bible..”

    “Second: Science…”

    Read both these statements. Then note the number of factual errors and logical fallacies.

    How many presuppositions has he listed that are actually defensible?

    “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

19. Margaret on 10 Sep 2008 at 8:24 am #

    Hi, I dip into your blog now and again, and enjoy reading your posts. I don’t think God is done with this man yet either. I rather think he might be progressing from one “stage” of faith (Fowler) to another, albeit with a desert in between. I hope so.

20. Steve on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:30 am #

    I’m with Jeffrey on this one. Fundamentalist schools and churches are great at preaching the eternal, but fail miserably at the here-and-now. Very few such schools or churches prepare people for life in the world as it is. (That said, I send my kids to a Baptist (fundamentalist) school simply because it’s better than the public schools in the area, but we constantly battle with their ’science’ department.)

    Nathan has certainly missed the point in many areas, but seems to be earnestly seeking the truth. It saddens me that he was set up for failure (or worse) by the very churches and schools that should have been preparing him for life.

    clearblue,
    Both sides of the evolution/creation ‘debate’ have been guilty of irrational arguments and bluster. I am an old-earth creationist and don’t see a need to invoke evolution to explain anything. My concern is the fundamentalist view that science is the enemy of faith (and the corresponding naturalist view that religious faith is the enemy of science). ‘Answers in Genesis’ and their ilk teach that science lies, and by extension that God lies in the natural record of creation.

    Bottom line - I don’t want kids to be afraid of science or of reasoned thought. I don’t want them to end up like Nathan because their schools or churches fail them.

21. David on 10 Sep 2008 at 11:00 am #

    Truth Unites, did you intend to say that evolution belief is apostacy, or were you trying to say that evolution belief can cause apostacy.

    And there are lots of professing Christians who apostasized because they believe that evolution is a “fact”.

22. Truth Unites... and Divides on 10 Sep 2008 at 11:41 am #

    David,

    The latter.

    Evolution belief can cause apostacy.

23. Susan on 10 Sep 2008 at 12:39 pm #

    Sad indeed. My suspicion is that this poor guy was deceived…. by false teaching, which lead him to follow an if “I’m good enough then I will merit God’s favor”…brand of self deception. Because of the unfortunate teaching he encountered he probably never had a true relationship with Jesus. Not having God’s indwelling Spirit, and being shackled by all those Pharisaical rules would turn anyone away…. especially when coupled with such a loss.

    I hope and pray that God’s Spirit will yet bring him to know His incredible grace, forgiveness and unfailing love.

24. Charles Rich on 10 Sep 2008 at 2:03 pm #

    What would cause Nathan to seek “happiness for…others?

25. Jeffrey on 10 Sep 2008 at 3:43 pm #

    Charles: “What would cause Nathan to seek ‘happiness for…others?’”

    Because he chooses to. Because he wants to be that kind of person. Or if he’s like me, he’s sufficiently stubborn to live a moral life without God just to prove it can be done.

    “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein

    Certainly, with true Christianity the motive is supposed to be love of God, not merely fear and greed. But if you think about what is going on with this love, if it’s detached from the fear and greed, it’s quite similar to learning to live a moral life without God. The only difference is the love of God versus the love of mankind as the driving emotion.

    (And also the veracity issue…)

    Consider Moses’ offer for God to blot him out of His book in Exodus 32:32. On the one hand, this makes the Bible more noble than most atheists like to admit. But on the other hand, do Christians criticize Moses for acting illogically? It’s not so different from an atheist laying down the only life he has for a friend.

26. Truth Unites... and Divides on 10 Sep 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    From a different perspective, this period of time could be a very good thing for Nathan.

    CMP is a 5-point Calvinist. I.e., you can’t leave behind what you never truly had.

    Therefore, if Nathan “left Christianity”, it can be theologically argued that he’s really leaving behind his false understanding of what it means to be a disciple of Christ, i.e., a follower who actively trusts, worships and praises the Triune God as his Lord and Savior, and if he leaves behind his distorted understanding for a true saving faith in Christ, then this has been a most excellent journey for Nathan and one in which God receives Great Glory!

    So let’s not wring hands in mealy-mouth despair, but just continue to pray in thanks for God’s joyful sovereignty.

    And with regards to Nathan being used by God to bring others to Christ or to help others grow in their walk with God, isn’t Matthew 7:22-23 a potentially scary passage?

    Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

27. Scott on 10 Sep 2008 at 6:15 pm #

    A response to my friend and fellow recovering ex-fundamentalist

28. Cadis on 10 Sep 2008 at 8:41 pm #

    Micheal
    Sorry I know your mission Michael, The title “Reclaiming the mind” sums it up and I’m with you all the way but you miss with these letters from leavers, Your not right here.

    “Folks but we need to wake up and understand our disparate condition due to the lack of true balanced discipleship. Quit acting as if we have no responsibility to lead people through intellectually tough issues. Quit acting as if we have it all figured out. Focus on the essentials. Show some grace. How could this person have gone to a Christian school and have no idea what Christianity is really about? God help us!”

    Do you really think discipleship would have changed this outcome?
    I’m not buying it. I have every gripe about legalism and rotten attitudes from professing Christians of every denomination as this guy.I don’t like liberal living hypocrites either. I went to a Christian school, I hated youth group meetings , oh sooooo phony those sickening sappy sweet smiling fundamental brats. Those pious praying grannies with thier condesending attitudes.They drove me away from God! really? that powerful?
    My Father struggled with these issuses as a Baptist pastor and we grew up within that struggle, so I understand. But no-one is responsible for you rejecting God but you .
    If these leavers wanted to know they would have sought it out. Dug for it like treasure. I mean really he has access to the internet. The problem is he isn’t hungry, living things eat or die. You can’t disciple someone who wants out. I know within his setting in his life somewhere someone could have addressed his issues.
    and I sure would like your definition of fundamentalism.

29. C Michael Patton on 10 Sep 2008 at 9:27 pm #

    Cadis,

    “Do you really think discipleship would have changed this outcome?”

    No, not necessarily, anymore than I think evangelism is going to save someone. But from a human standpoint we, as Christians, are under mandate and intrinsic compulsion to be faithful with the discharge of the entire Gospel. The Holy Spirit determines the outcome.

    What I am saying is the we are not doing our job in discipleship. This is just one of thousands who tell the same story. It is not just that this story is being told, but that it is becoming much more frequent as people divorce themselves from their former folk religion that was never really a true representation to begin with.

    Hope that make sense.

30. Cadis on 10 Sep 2008 at 10:00 pm #

    “Hope that make sense.”

    Yes I guess it make sense
    I don’t believe this fellow was saved but if he was why should he have to hunt for information , teaching and discipleship. It should be readily available this is true .

31. Truth Unites... and Divides on 11 Sep 2008 at 5:05 pm #

    “What I am saying is the we are not doing our job in discipleship. This is just one of thousands who tell the same story. It is not just that this story is being told, but that it is becoming much more frequent as people divorce themselves from their former folk religion that was never really a true representation to begin with.“

    People divorcing themselves from their former folk religion (which they erroneously thought was a true representation) is a good thing.

    I actually think there are three parts at work here: One, the gospel delivery. Two, the ones doing the discipling and instruction from Scripture. Three, the unregenerate individual who has a faulty idea of what the Gospel is and who hasn’t fully submitted their heart and their sins over to God.

32. Ruben on 15 Sep 2008 at 12:19 pm #

    I’m an ex fundamentalist myself, I also abandoned the faith for a brief period
    of time after being unable to reconcile my faith with the world and my own
    feelings. But God called me back and opened up new worlds for me that I
    never guessed were His. I think Nathan is rejecting a picture of God that is
    not accurate, through my brief period of being an agnostic I could not say bad
    things about Jesus or picture him in the same boat as the Christianity I
    learned about and rejected. I hope he has time to grow out of his depression
    and heal, I think he needs time to work things out. His comments about the
    students at Liberty University resonate with how I viewed things as a
    fundamentalist - the secular and spiritual are 2 separate domains and we
    are expected to minimize the secular and live mostly in the spiritual. Everything
    is under scrutiny of being unChristian, this is what the Internet Monk calls
    “wretched urgency”. This is one of the hardest things to get rid of, as of now
    I see no distinction between secular or spiritual, everything is spiritual and
    God delights in the mundane and simple joys we have.

33. jeannieM on 16 Sep 2008 at 5:14 am #

    I don’t think any church or person could make me lose my faith. I’ve suffered too much and struggled through too much, holding onto Jesus for that. However, one thing that could make me leave the Church is most churches love for the world and all the worldly pleasures and riches it has to offer them. This causes them to look at other people through the eyes of the World and not through God’s. Many Christians judge people by how high a degree they hold, what kind of car they drive, how big a house they live in, the brand of clothes they wear….. need I go on. Sadly some Christians don’t see the difference between Christ and us mere Christians with all our faults. Many Christian’s have saddened me or hurt me by their attitudes (and I am sure I have done the same), but it makes me love Christ even more, because He has always been there for me. My prayer is not that He takes away my difficulties, but that He will purify my heart and renew my Spirit, so that I will see and love all people as He does. I want to share their sufferering as well as their joy. I also pray to find a Church where His love reigns, even though it may not be perfect.

34. A thomist on 17 Sep 2008 at 2:40 am #

    This story leaves out all the relevant details. At some point, the author became carnal minded, but at no point does he ever tell us of his personal struggles against his own personal sins. Are we simply to assume that the author never stole, destroyed another’s reputation, lied, coveted, played around with porn, ate to extreme excess, ignored his brothers in need, nursed hatred in his heart, drank excessively, used drugs on occasion, moved in with his girlfriend… and this is to say nothing of the hundreds of more obvious or more subtle sins!

    There is no personal moral dimension to his story. He passes over this in silence and presents his whole case as though it were purely a matter of the head. I don’t believe him. All the important details have been sanitized out of his story.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply