And how they can be answered

1. I could never be good enough!
This is a very common objection! People seem to feel that if they can just give up smoking, or swearing, then they might indeed like to go to church. The assumption, of course, is that only 'good people' go to church - that is, people who have no human failings. And yet, we all have human failings! Certainly becoming a Christian will involve becoming aware of such things and setting about rooting such failings out. Yet the Christian finds strength to root out many (even if not entirely all) failings through the power of the Holy Spirit! When Christ convicts the new believer's heart, it is truly astonishing how that person can alter! All those of us who have been Christians for many years have witnessed some amazing transformations in people!
And yet it would be incorrect to believe that the new Christian suddenly becomes perfect - this just does not happen, even though most new believers find a new self-discipline coming into their lives. But is Jesus Christ looking for "perfect" people? We know that He often ate meals with people who were far from perfect:

When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners

(Mark 2:16-17 NIV)

2. People who go to church tend to be hypocrites!
It is surprising how common this saying is, but let us stop and analyse it for one moment:
Lets face it - hypocrisy is never far from human nature. We speak of politicians who don't always practise what they preach and we call them 'hypocrites' whether or not they fully deserve the epithet (perhaps, quite often they do!) A hypocrite is a person who says one thing but does something quite different - if we are going to be absolutely honest we would have to admit that every one of us has fallen short here at one time or another!
Joseph Alder said,
Hypocrisy is as much a part of human existence as breathing in and breathing out!
So it surely is a little unfair to suggest that 'church-goers' (rather more than any other group) are all hypocrites!
However, there is no doubt that some church and chapel-goers have 'majored' on judgementalism, indeed so often it has been judgementalism while not in full possession of the facts! However, the fact that most Christians have moral and behavioural standards which they seek to live by can give a false impression of judgementalism. Most Christians would say,
Hate the sin, but love the sinner!

We do indeed hate sin - even when we ourselves occasionally succomb to it (which we all occasionally do!), but we love the sinner and seek to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to them - indeed, we are prepared to seek out the most notorious of sinners in order to encourage them to join us!! We seek out the outcast, and we seek out those rejected of society. We have absolutely nothing to gain from this - our motives are truly altruistic. We do it because the one we follow admonished us to take the Gospel into all the world in order to make disciples for Christ! Matthew 28: 18-20, for example.
So while quite obviously some of us fall short at various times and in various ways (we remain human!), I believe that the motive of the Christian is utterly noble, and - because of our clear worldview - we are probably - overall - less inclined to contradiction and hypocrisy than most.

3. You can be a 'good Christian' without ever "going to church"
This is quite an odd saying but it is a very common one in the UK. I think the saying misunderstands what true Christianity is! It seems to reflect a view which believes that a Christian is merely a very kind person who goes around doing kind and philanthropic deeds for others. Of course, that is fine and is to be encouraged but that idea never gets down to the 'nuts & bolts' of what Christianity is all about!
And yet if we look at the saying and take it literally, it is true. Why? Because actually a Christian never "goes" to church - he or she is either in the Church......or, not! Biblically speaking, 'church' is not a building, but the people themselves comprise 'Church' (with a capital 'C'). So we are not made "church" by regularly attending any hall of worship, nor should such a hall of worship ever (strictly speaking) be called "church". According to the New Testament (which must be deemed the final authority), those people who respond in faith to the message of the Gospel are - in themselves - THE CHURCH.
And yet it remains true that a Christian will want to meet with, and worship with, other believers in the Christ and the writer of the Book of Hebrews admonishes us all not to forsake the practise of assembling together in order to praise God!
So while it might be (technically) true that one can be a 'good Christian' without going to a place of worship, it remains the case that this popular comment is based on a flawed understanding of what Christianity is, and a Christian will want to meet with others in order to praise God where this is possible (and sometimes it isn't).
But, in the final analysis, a Christian should never be defined simply as 'a person who goes to church' - that is a very unsatisfactory concept!
No, a Christian is a person who accepts that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Son of God and wants to become a disciple of the very same Jesus. In becoming such a disciple, the man or woman fully accepts that their "job description" will involve not only prayer and Bible study (in order to learn more about God), but also - to a greater or lesser degree - to be an evangelist for Christ! This is what being a Christian is all about! We allow our lights to shine for Christ - we don't hide them away in case they are spotted!

4. Why believe in Christ or God in the 21st century when science and evolution has done away with any need to believe in God?
Of course, the whole reasoning and approach here is completely erroneous! It is well beyond the mandate and scope of science to "test" whether God exists! Almost all scientists would reject any notion that their discipline can ever amount to placing them in a position of appraising/evaluating/testing the existence of God; their brief, as scientists, falls well short of that!
It is indeed odd that the media, in general, still tends to hold the concept that science and religion are bound to be at loggerheads (in fact, this is a very outdated concept). The truth, of course, is that numerous scientists of the past and present have been devout believers. We may think of such names as William Herschel, Blaise Pascal, Dr Warren Weaver, Michael Faraday, Sir Robert Boyd, Sam Berry or scores of others.

Much confusion has often been caused by the atheist populist propagandists such as Richard Dawkins. Some of these propagandists for naturalistic materialism have made "scientific" claims which serious scientists have only been able to view with their tongues firmly in cheek! Such writers still tend to embrace macro-evolution in some form despite the fact that many believe that Darwin will be the next 'sacred cow' "great mind" of the anti-God modernist 19th century to fall, following Marx and Freud. The Theory of Evolution itself has now become a very unstable edifice, but it is a shaky construction which many fear to flee since to depart from it is tantamount to admitting that there must have been a supernatural Creator! Many serious scientific writers such as Denton and Eldridge - even while for the moment remaining evolutionists themselves - are starting to ask deep and searching questions about a theory which is really more of an anti-supernaturalist philosophical statement than a theory which can ever be empirically substantiated by scientific test or experiment!
Michael Behe's new work in 'Irreducible Complexity' has sent shockwaves around the scientific community since this proven concept strongly legislates against the possibility of unproven Evolution!
This is much too large a subject to cover here, but I would refer the enthusiastic reader to the article The Truth About Evolution.

But suffice it to say here that no scientific test or experiment has ever shown, or ever will be able to show that God does not exist!
So if one should seriously say, Why believe in Christ or God in the 21st century when science and evolution has done away with any need to believe in God? they are effectively asking a question which is not only illogical but actually nonsensical!



Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional