This month I want to return to examining objections to Christianity and how we might respond.
Recently, Tim Barnett [1] responded to a young man’s social media post expressing concerns about Christianity. Although the internet often leaves much to be desired (see last month’s apologetic note, for example), it can offer insight into what Christians and non-Christians—especially younger generations—are thinking about spirituality.
In this short video, the young man (whom Barnett calls a “content creator” [2]) describes alleged “inconsistencies” he has heard from his pastor. He concludes by asking, “Should this ‘inconsistency’ completely remove my faith, or does this not undermine the true values of Christianity . . .?”
The 3.5-minute video is titled “Are These GOOD REASONS to Leave Christianity?”
Barnett offers an excellent, concise response to the young man’s claims, using mostly everyday, non-theological language. That is likely how we would respond initially, too. However, I want to explore the issues more deeply and provide some of the theological context the young man may need before accepting these explanations. His monologue seems sincere, and I believe he would listen to and thoughtfully consider a Christian response. I pray that someone in his Christian community will offer him one.
The young man says his pastor is inconsistent about homosexuality and tithing. He acknowledges that Leviticus identifies homosexual behavior as sinful (Lev 18:22; 20:13), but argues that Leviticus also calls eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, and working on the Sabbath “an abomination.” Yet, he says, “all Christians I know do these three things without a second thought.” Barnett’s response correctly distinguishes between the Old and New Testament covenants but his point requires further explanation.
Christian evangelicals generally believe that the entire Bible is God’s inspired Word, but they do not believe that every command given to ancient Israel remains a legal obligation for Christians today. The central question is how the Old Testament law relates to the new covenant established through Jesus Christ.
Several fundamental theological principles are central to this question.
· All Scripture is inspired and authoritative (2 Tim 3:16–17). The Old Testament is neither discarded nor considered inferior to the New Testament. It reveals God’s creation, character, purposes, relationship with humanity, and plan of redemption.
· Jesus fulfills the Old Testament (Matt 5:17–20). Jesus said that he came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Christians understand this to mean that the Old Testament finds its intended culmination in Christ.
· Christians live under the New Covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6–13). The New Testament teaches that Christ inaugurated a new covenant, changing how God’s people relate to the Mosaic regulations. Hebrews explains that the first covenant was not final: it was incomplete and provisional, and the new covenant had been promised through the prophet Jeremiah. The liberating power of Jesus’ death brings that promised covenant into effect.
· God’s moral will remains central (Matt 22:37–40; Rom 13:8–10). The new covenant does not give Christians permission to disregard morality. Jesus and the apostles reaffirm many Old Testament moral commands, often explaining them in terms of love, holiness, justice, mercy, and the condition of the heart.
Many evangelicals use a framework that distinguishes among moral, ceremonial, and civil or judicial laws. Moral laws express God’s standards for human conduct, including prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony. These moral imperatives remain binding, as Jesus and the apostles affirm (Ex 20:1–17; Rom 13:9; Eph 4:25–28).
Ceremonial laws governed sacrifices, ritual purity, the priesthood, festivals, and other aspects of Israel’s worship. Christians generally believe these regulations no longer bind believers as covenant requirements because Jesus fulfilled their redemptive purpose (Lev 1; 11; Col 2:16–17; Heb 10:1–14). Civil or judicial laws governed Israel as a nation, addressing matters such as property, criminal penalties, restitution, and the administration of justice. These laws generally do not serve as the civil code for modern nations or the church. Their principles of justice, responsibility, and care for others, however, continue to inform Christian ethics (Ex 21–23; Deut 19–25).
It is important to acknowledge that not all Christians agree on this three-part framework. Evangelicals differ in how they understand the Old Testament law’s continuing role in Christian life. They broadly agree, though, that salvation comes through Christ alone and that Christians are not required to observe the entire Mosaic law as ancient Israel did. As Barnett explains, the pastor’s teaching about homosexuality and tithing is not an example of selective application.
The young man’s other concern involves the role of women in the church, a contentious issue among Christians today. His church apparently has female pastors (“We all have women pastors now”). He attributes the presence of women in leadership roles in churches to “cultural progression,” despite what he understands Paul to teach in Corinthians and Timothy. He does not, however, cite specific passages or justify his claim.
Barnett correctly responds that the “debate over women in ministry isn’t about cultural progression. It’s about biblical interpretation.” More specifically, the debate concerns how Scripture should guide women’s participation in worship, teaching, leadership, pastoral ministry, and church governance. Christians across major traditions affirm women’s dignity and spiritual worth, but they disagree about whether the Bible assigns different responsibilities to men and women in the church.
Barnett mentions egalitarians but does not explain egalitarianism or complementarianism in his brief response. This subject deserves more attention than either Barnett or I can provide here. Still, the young man must understand that this remains a live debate within the Church and that it should center on biblical interpretation, not cultural progression. A balanced and productive approach is to examine the disputed passages in context, understand the arguments on both sides, and distinguish what Scripture explicitly states from conclusions drawn through broader theological interpretation.
Christians in this young man’s community should step forward and help him understand Scripture’s guidance on these matters. That is an essential part of discipleship. I believe he is implicitly asking for help. I hope he is also praying for guidance rather than simply venting on social media.
In Christ,
Doug
1 Peter 3:15
[1] Tim Barnett is a Christian apologist, speaker, and former high school science and mathematics teacher. He holds a B.S. in physics from York University, a B.Ed. from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and an M.A. in philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary. After nearly a decade with the apologetics ministry Stand to Reason, he joined Apologetics Canada. He also created the social media and video project called “Red Pen Logic with Mr. B”, which critiques and corrects flawed cultural and secular arguments found online. https://www.youtube.com/c/RedPenLogic#:~:text=We%20help%20you%20assess%20bad,fun%20while%20we're%20doing%20it
[2] “Content creator” is a general term for someone who produces digital media to inform, inspire, challenge, entertain, or market. Barnett could have called the young man a “skeptic”—someone who questions, doubts, or suspends judgment about religious claims, sacred traditions, or authority. However, he may have considered that label premature. The young man apparently attends church regularly but has sincere questions that, if left unanswered, could lead him away from the Christian faith.