Did Mr. Narnia himself not like Christmas? Well, in his essay, “What Christmas Means to Me,”[1] he calls it a nuisance. He also describes it as a racket, says that it produces nightmarish pain, and that it’s part of a lunatic condition of the world. So, yeah, he wasn’t much of a fan.

Now, Lewis does not have in mind, what he calls, the “religious festival” of Christmas (i.e., where Christians focus on and celebrate the incarnation of Christ). He’s also quick to say he’s not critiquing anyone’s merrymaking and celebration of winter holidays. For this, he takes the how-you-have-fun-is-none-of-my-business tact.

He focuses, in roughly 650 words, the full force of the Lewisian intellect and wit, with a good dose of scrooge-ish sentiment, on the commercial side of Christmas. We might use scare quotes here and call what he has in mind “Christmas.” He seems particularly annoyed by the expectation and practice of gift giving in the Christmas season. Now, I think this is quite humorous and I have found yet another reason to love and identify with Lewis.

Lewis sees this commercial racket as a ploy forced on us by shopkeepers to get us to spend our money. He condemns the practice because of the great pain of shopping, to which many will say Amen. He says:

Long before December 25th everyone is worn out—physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.

Additional complaints include “anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail” and “things are given as present which no mortal ever bought for himself—gaudy and useless gadgets, ‘novelties’ because no one was ever fool enough to make their like before.”

It’s good for the economy, or so they tell us.

But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I’d sooner give them money for nothing and write it off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.

I think it’s safe to say from the sentiments expressed above that Lewis is not a fan of “Christmas.” He’s especially not a fan of what gets attached to Christmas. He’d rather just write a check and be done with it.

But having disdain for “Christmas” shouldn’t suggest that Lewis did not deeply appreciate the religious significance of Christmas. Lewis was deeply captivated by the incarnation of Christ and all that this means for us as Christians.

Elsewhere he says, “The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation. They say that God became Man. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this” (ch 14 in Miracles).

It is the incarnation that, in many ways, sets Christianity apart from other religions. God very God stepped into our world. I’ve argued before that there is no bigger claim than this. The transcendent, all-powerful God of the universe was born in a manger becoming like us in order to reconcile us to God. This, I suggest, is just better than all of the commercial Christmas activities. Now we don’t have to jettison the Christmas season, of course. Maybe we can try to avoid blackmailing each other with our gift-giving and not wear ourselves out with getting ready for all the festivities. But there’s no question we do not neglect to celebrate the incredible miracle of Christmas when God became man.

***

Get a free book here.

Do you have doubts or big questions, or know anyone that does? I wrote my new book, Wandering Toward God, to be a helpful resource (or perhaps a lifeline even) for anyone who struggles with doubts or big questions.

---

[1] Chapter 6 of God in the dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Eerdmans, 1970)

Aaannndddd the abortion debate is back on!

For so many years making a case for life felt like yelling into the wind. The matter seemed forever settled. And then it wasn’t.

Oddly, a common reaction that I have seen has been that this is religious fanatics forcing religious beliefs on the rest of the country. While I have no problem, in principle, in advocating religious convictions in the public square, this one is decidedly not religious. To my mind, the full personhood of the unborn not only could be but should be recognized by all. The case is not a religious one. In fact, I don’t find the Bible to be abundantly clear on exactly when the right to life begins. To be sure, the Bible clearly recognizes the personhood of the unborn in a variety of places. I think it also provides a theological framework for personhood that is at home with the pro-life view, and this is no small matter. But, just like many other important issues, one must take that biblical framework and make decisions about exactly how it applies to particular issues. [1]

It’s not religious but it does take some metaphysics

But the point here is the case need not involve any Bible verses. Not one.

The case requires no religious creed or theological doctrine.

The case doesn’t even require a belief in God. A full-blown atheist could believe in the full personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception and this would beg no question.

Now, to be clear, the case I will make does require a hefty metaphysical commitment. A strict physicalist that thinks a human person is nothing over and above physical parts and processes cannot abide this case. The unborn, for the physicalist, really just is a clump of cells. But so are you and so am I. You and I are just quite a bit larger clumps.

It seems to me perfectly morally acceptable to remove and destroy mere clumps of cells. If physicalism has it right, then abortion at any stage of the game is perfectly unobjectionable. But since nothing much changes from birth onward from the physical point of view, the problem becomes that it’s really difficult to say why infant, children or adult clumps of cells have the right to life. Us adult clumps of cells may decide by consensus that we shouldn’t end each other’s lives and all pinky-promise to hold up our end of the bargain. But this doesn’t amount to a moral right and certainly not one that is inalienable.

The case for the personhood of the unborn

Okay, what’s the case for the personhood of the unborn?

The first step is the hefty metaphysical commitment. So, buckle up here. The claim is that human persons are embodied souls. I know, I know…it sounds religious. But it’s not. Think Plato and Descartes here rather than some religious claim or creed. You could draw this view entirely from Plato’s and Descartes’s arguments and know nothing of the biblical claims. Even though these (especially Plato) argue for quite a number of theses related to the soul, they seemed to take the existence of the soul as a quite obvious fact.

And I agree.

Why think the existence of the soul is a quite obvious fact? I suggest it’s what we know best. If I know anything, I know I exist and that I’m not a mere physical body. I think that I am directly aware of myself as a thing of conscious experiences.

I am not my body

What I am not directly aware of is anything specifically physical or bodily. I am directly aware of conscious experiences that *I take* to be the result of physical and bodily processes, but, on my view, we are only directly aware of the conscious experiences.

For example, I’m directly aware of pain. I’m not directly aware of the bodily process going on when I experience pain. That takes an inference. When I stub my toe, there is an extremely complicated physiological process involving nerve receptors, my brain, nervous system, etc. But I’m not directly aware of these things. We are told these things are happening, but I can’t simply reflect and know that certain parts of my brain are lit up given my stubbed toe.

Look, I don’t even know for sure that I have a brain!! [Insert whatever jokes you need to here] Okay, I’m maybe being a bit cheeky here, but I have no direct evidence that I have a brain. And unless you have had some extraordinary medical issues related to your brain, you likely have no direct evidence either. Do I believe I have a brain? Of course I do, and I believe that you have a brain too. But, why? What evidence do I have? The evidence is almost entirely testimonial and inferential. I’ve been told by the experts that all humans (and many other organisms) have brains. I have seen this confirmed in other animals along the way. But, for most of us, that’s going to be about it.

But I do know that I have a mind perhaps better than anything else I know. I know that I am a thinking thing with all sorts of conscious experiences. And I know that there’s a self that is having these experiences. I am a soul. The way I think we are best characterized is as embodied souls. It’s not that I have a soul or have been ensouled. It’s that *I am* a soul.  And this soul is embodied.

There is, of course, a lot more to say about this and an endless supply of controversies on which to weigh in. While this is a deep metaphysical commitment, I’d suggest that many people think of themselves in this way even without any of the technicality philosophers love to wade into. It’s very natural to think of yourself as something more than just particles in motion. We care about our bodies, but it’s not like we fret over losing skin cells on the daily. We care much more about conscious experiences and think of the bearer of those experiences as fundamentally us. So I don’t think we need any kind of sophisticated philosophy of mind to be quite aware of ourselves as souls where we understand this to mean we are immaterial selves that have conscious experiences.

When does the soul begin to exist?

Now, if you take the metaphysical plunge here, then the only question is when the soul/the self comes into existence. It’s clear that conscious experiences begin in the womb. How early? I’m sure we can know this for sure. But, by all measures, it’s rather early in fetal development.

But having conscious experiences is not, it seems, the best criterion for the existence of the soul. That is, we can fail to have conscious experience and still exist. We lose consciousness regularly. It’s not like we pass out of existence for the time in which we are unconscious whether we are sleeping, knocked out or under anesthesia. Conscious experience is best thought of a sign or evidence of the soul. It doesn’t, however, constitute the existence of the soul.

To me, the far and away most plausible marker is the moment of conception. The moment of conception is when the brand-new organism comes into existence. The sperm and the egg by themselves are not organisms, but a fertilized egg is. It’s a fundamentally new thing and from there it simply grows, develops and eventually changes location.

Now, it’s certainly possible that the soul comes into existence sometime after conception. But when? Every other marker seems to be arbitrary. Why should a fetal heartbeat or brain activity suggest there’s now a soul with rights much less viability or first breath or birth. When we evaluate the possible markers, conception seems to be the only non-arbitrary marker this brand-new existence.

The right to life

We should notice there’s nothing religious here. Does it fit a Christian anthropology? Yes. But so does getting good exercise and getting out of debt. This doesn’t make getting regular exercise and paying off credit cards religious. The claim that we are embodied souls fits an array of data, especially the data of our conscious experiences. While being metaphysically hefty, the claim that I am an immaterial self that has conscious experiences is a natural way of explaining what’s before me. If that’s what I am and I deserve the right to life, then there’s good reason to believe the unborn should have the right to life. When does the right to life begin? The moment of conception is the moment when this thing becomes something brand new. It is, as I see it, the moment in which life begins.

---

[1] Probably the closest we get is Jeremiah 1:5 where God says that he knew Jeremiah before he fashioned him in his mother’s womb. This may be a reference to conception, but, again, it’s not completely clear.

In Colossians 2:3, Paul makes the claim that “in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” This is a staggering claim.

Jesus as astonishing

In studying the intellectual life of Jesus for my book Logic and the Way of Jesus: Thinking Critically and Christianly, I was struck by how many times Jesus’s audiences were astonished, amazed, or otherwise astounded by him. In a variety of stories, the following is a familiar refrain:

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astonished at his teaching (Matt. 7:28)

On one hand, this might seem unsurprising. Of course people are astounded by a guy healing folks, casting out demons, multiplying fishes and loaves, and walking on water. These events of course merit astonishment, but this is not the only or even the primary thing about which people were most commonly astonished. People were constantly amazed by Jesus’s teaching and the ideas that he defended. It was minds’ blown, ah-ha moments, and downright shock and awe at what Jesus claimed.  

Part of this is of course due to the fact that this was the small-town carpenter’s son who lacked a formal rabbinic training. What’s more, he didn’t appeal to any rabbinic tradition when he taught. He said “truly I tell you”, which for a Jewish culture should make him immediately dismissible. But they didn’t dismiss. In fact, they followed him wherever he went.

Why? What about his teaching caused people to follow him?

The brilliance of Jesus

I think there’s a lot here, but I’d like to suggest that one aspect, perhaps a primary aspect, of this is the sheer brilliance of Jesus. He was very often and quite literally unassailable in the positions he defended. He put on an astonishing display of intellectual virtue.

We often fail to see Jesus in this way. He’s often much tamer than this and we therefore don’t involve him in our intellectual pursuits. However, the Bible presents Jesus as the preeminent intellectual of humanity and the very embodiment of wisdom. As Dallas Willard was known to say, “Jesus is the most intelligent person who ever lived on earth.” Indeed, in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).

Just as Jesus is, for most of us, our moral exemplar, he should be our intellectual exemplar as well. But how do we do this? What does this look like?

Jesus as critical thinker

I have a suggestion. To see it, I want to look at something of a snapshot of Jesus’s early life that may shed some light on what it looks likes to follow Jesus in this way. The Bible makes clear that Jesus actually grew in wisdom. Let that sink in for a minute. And yeah, I don’t get that either, if I’m honest…at least, not entirely! How is it that divinely omniscient Son of God grew in wisdom? Well, here’s my best stab at it: it’s best to see wisdom as skilled and virtuous thinking. As Jesus grew, he, in his humanity, had to learn and develop the skills of an embodied existence. Just as Jesus became more skilled at, say, walking, talking and carpentry, he became more skilled at thinking, as he grew.

In Luke 2, Luke tells us twice that Jesus grew in wisdom.

Now the Child continued to grow and to become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the favor of God was upon Him. (40)

And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and people. (52)

Sandwiched between these passages we have a one-of-a-kind account that seems intended to elucidate what it means for Jesus to grow in wisdom. We get a story about 12-year-old Jesus.  

The story is familiar. Jesus’s family is in Jerusalem for the Passover feast and, on their return to Nazareth, they realize 12-year-old Jesus is not with them. While this is not atypical 12-year-old behavior, where he is found and what he is found doing is quite extraordinary.

And when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. (45-47)

There are a few things to notice.

First, these are the elite Jewish teachers and they are amazed at 12-year-old Jesus. These are the same ones that would later call for his execution. These are also the same ones that Jesus himself condemned as, in effect, false teachers. And yet here he is sitting in among them listening and asking questions.

Second, 12-year-old Jesus has a certain posture. He is a learner. He is, in a way, a truth seeker. He’s not merely accepting what they say, but he is listening and asking questions. This is a posture of a critical thinker.

The posture of a learner

So in making Jesus our intellectual exemplar, we should very often and regularly take the posture of a learner. We need to spend time listening and asking questions of those with whom we sit.

There are many with whom we should sit, listen to and ask questions. And, at times, this should include those of differing views. We can learn a lot from these sorts of conversations (notice I didn’t say debates!).  

But most importantly and most fundamentally we must apprentice under the Lord Jesus Christ and be taught by him. I think we too need to sit with him, we listen and ask him questions. He is brilliant. He is the embodiment of wisdom. “For, in him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” We need our souls refreshed and our minds renewed by regularly sitting with Jesus as our teacher.

I’m very excited to announce that a new book has hit the shelves: Logic and the way of Jesus: Thinking Critically and Christianly

Here’s the elevator pitch: “Logic and the Way of Jesus argues that we, as Christians, should see Jesus as a brilliant thinker. We should see him as not only our moral exemplar but also as our intellectual exemplar, and we should, therefore, work to conform our thinking to his. In short, we should think critically and Christianly. The book provides an introduction to critical thinking couched in the life of Jesus and motivated by the Christian worldview. It serves as a guide to both thinking critically and thinking Christianly as we love God with all of our minds.”

Paul Copan was kind enough to write the foreword for the book. Here’s the amazon link and here’s the publisher’s site (you can even see a short video promo!). Below is the Table of Contents:

 I’m so thankful for all those who helped make this a reality. I don’t know if it takes a village, but it definitely takes a lot of people and I’m blessed to have them in my life.

Not long ago, a cable TV show host, who is an outspoken atheist, had on his show a relatively well-known Christian pastor. In a discussion about morality and faith, which was overall friendly, the host asked the pastor why “faith” is a good thing. This appears innocent enough and is, I think, a good question. I wonder how many of us would have a good answer for this question. But the host didn’t leave it there. Here is how the full question was asked: 

“Why is faith good?  Why is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking a good thing?” 

Now this is of course a leading question, since the host is attempting to force the pastor to answer the first question in light of the definition found in the second.  It can be difficult to give a straightforward answer to these sorts of complex questions.

How Christians talk about faith

So it is an unfair question but really it is only sort of unfair, given the way that many Christians talk about faith. Many Christians seem quite happy to talk about faith as necessarily irrational (reason is incompatible with faith) or a-rational (reason is harmful or irrelevant to faith). Sometimes the thought seems to be that faith, in a way, takes over or fills the gap when our reasons run out or, even worse, reason is detrimental for faith. It’s like a seesaw. The more reason one has, the less faith. The more faith, the less reason.

Many Christians seem to embrace the idea that faith and reason are completely separate pursuits. There’s your rational pursuits on one hand (science, political platforms, etc.) and your faith pursuits on the other and never the twain shall meet. On this latter notion, evidence against (or for) the claims of Christianity are irrelevant since evidence has nothing to do with faith.

What is reasonable faith?

On my view, it is a very serious mistake to think of faith as irrational or a-rational. However, I want to be clear at the outset that there can be an overreliance on reason, especially if we think of reason in its more academic sense. No one needs a well worked out, logically sound argument with premises that entail a specific conclusion to have reason for belief. You won’t last long if this is your criterion for rational belief. If you find yourself standing in the way of oncoming traffic, please don’t try to formalize an argument before stepping aside! The seeing of oncoming traffic should be reason enough.

It is also important to mention that one can be very rational in believing something even if one is not able to articulate what one’s reasons are. I think most committed Christians have reasons to believe that Christianity is true. Most Christians have things like religious experiences, answered prayers, an experience of God’s providence in a time of need, the testimonies of others of these things, and so on. Moreover, the world testifies of God’s existence, in both its mere existence and its design. If cornered, one may not be able to, on the spot, articulate these reasons, but it simply doesn’t follow that one doesn’t have them. On my view, Christians are far more rational in their faith than even they realize. They just haven’t reflected carefully enough to be ready to give that defense.

So with our understanding of “reason” sufficiently broadened, I want to make the claim that to think reason either runs contrary to faith, floats freely of faith or that faith is an otherwise blind, reason-less pursuit are not biblical views. 

The blind faith challenge

I have often challenged my students, as something of an assignment, to come up with one example from Scripture of so-called “blind faith” and I goad them a bit by saying that I don’t think they will find even one instance…but good luck trying. There is always at least one enthusiastic student who cannot wait for the next time we meet and will offer a narrative such as Abraham offering up Isaac as a sacrifice, in Genesis 22:1-19, as an example of blind faith. The thought seems to be that Abraham had all the reason in the world not to go through with the sacrifice but chose to blindly place his faith in God. Again, it is of course the case that Abraham did not have a formalized argument for sacrificing Isaac but is it true to say that he had no reason at all? Even though the command would have been horrifying, as a dad, it seems to me that Abraham made a very rational choice.

What reason did Abraham have?

We should keep in mind that God spoke verbally to Abraham (give that one a second) and told him to sacrifice his son. By this time, Abraham had come to believe (for good reasons!) that God is the one and only almighty God. It wasn’t so long before this event that Abraham and Sarah had had Isaac. Every child is of course a miracle but it is on a whole different level when Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is in her early 90’s. This undoubtedly expanded Abraham’s understanding (to say the least!) of what God is able to do and even more importantly it expanded his understanding that God is steadfastly faithful to fulfill his covenant promise. In a word, God proved himself to Abraham to be trustworthy or what we may call faith-worthy.

With all of this as backdrop, when the almighty God of the universe shakes the sound waves and tells you to do something, is it not eminently rational to act accordingly no matter how crazy the request sounds to us? It’s true that he had some competing reasons, but they pale in comparison to the reasons he had for going through with the sacrifice.

Peter and perfectly good boat

This is not unlike Peter’s cognitive situation on the Sea of Galilee. In Matthew 14:25-32, Peter demonstrates his faith in the person and power of Jesus by jumping out of a perfectly good boat and, as a result, Jesus enables him to walk on water. But Peter starts looking around at some competing reasons suggesting walking on the water in a violent storm is not such a good idea and he quickly cedes his trust away from Christ. It is not as if Peter lacked reasons for trusting Christ, given all that Peter had seen and come to believe about him. His doubt was the irrational choice. So it seems to me that these are examples of responses of reasonable faith (or the lack thereof as it turns out for Peter) rather than examples of blind faith. 

The incoherence of blind faith

One reason that I am so confident my students will never find any examples of blind faith is that I am not sure it is a coherent notion. What would that look like to trust someone or something for no reason at all? Take for example, the “faith fall” you maybe did or have seen in a High School youth group. This is where one student stands on a table or chair with his or her back to a group of peers whose arms are interlocked together. Without looking, the student is meant to fall into the arms of the student’s peers. This is sometimes said to illustrate faith because the student who falls is not looking and has to “blindly” trust his or her peers. But how blind is this? I very much doubt any of us would take the fall unless we knew there were a pile of arms behind us. In other words, the student has pretty good reasons for thinking that this will go well. For it to be blind, you would need to just fall at some random moment in the hopes that a group of peers had strategically gathered behind you. I don’t recommend this for your next youth meeting, nor do I recommend understanding faith as reason-less for our pursuits of God. 

It is ALWAYS more rational to trust the God of the universe and submit ourselves to him!

(a version of this article originally appeared on www.theologicalmatters.com which is no longer on the web)

I believe apologetics is extremely important and has great value. But it doesn’t have the power to save a soul. No amount of apologetics gets someone into the kingdom of God. It’s only the gospel that has that power (Rom. 1:16).

Now I realize no sane Christian actually claims apologetics has the power to save. People who make use of this sentiment are typically criticizing apologetics. Years ago, I was speaking with an prominent Christian theologian who was suggesting apologetics didn’t have much value since, as he said, he’d only led no more than 5 people to Christ through apologetics. My response was (said as nicely as I could) that he hadn’t led anyone to Christ on the basis of apologetics! Apologetics doesn’t have the power to save.

The value of apologetics

Can apologetics be instrumental in in one’s journey to Christ? Of course, and this is where there is significant value. We’ve all needed reasons to believe along the way. For example, it may have been hearing a powerful testimony about how someone’s life was radically transformed in coming to Christ. This constitutes a reason (i.e., it is an apologetic) to believe Christianity is true, good, and beautiful. All Christians have reasons for the hope that’s within and to give a defense of these is reasons is to give an apologetic (1 Peter 3:15).

But merely having Christian beliefs is of course not to have saving faith in Christ. There are plenty of people with Christian beliefs (especially in churches here in the Bible belt!) in the same way that the demons believe but also shudder (James 2:19). These may believe intellectually but they have not placed their faith in Christ.

In short, beliefs based on apologetic arguments do not save. Apologetics can have tremendous instrumental value, but it is only the gospel that has the power to save.

All Christians need to make clear the beauty and brilliance of this gospel.

What is the gospel?

Ok, real quick, what is the Christian gospel? God is maximally great in every perfect and, as such, holds the whole universe into being as its source and purpose. In short, all of reality points to and is the result of the glory and greatness of God. We humans, however, choose to live out of step with this and, in a very fundamental way, fail to make our lives point to the glory and greatness of God. We, in fact, attempt to point to our own glory and greatness every chance we get, even if very subtly. In short, we, in our fallenness, live sinful lives morally out of step with God and stand, therefore, condemned. But here comes the gospel (i.e., good news): God, in his love, provides a way of salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In short, God-incarnate suffers our debt. We ought, therefore, to repent and point our lives squarely at the glory and greatness of God as we entrust ourselves to Jesus as Lord. And this brings us peace with God, which is the way of genuine human flourishing.

The beauty and brilliance of the gospel

By my lights, there simply is no bigger, no better, no more beautiful idea in the history of the world. I think it is intriguing and attractive all on its own and I would put it up against all the great philosophical and religious ideas throughout the history of the world. To me, it is peerless.

In fact, when people reject Christian belief, they don’t usually say that the gospel itself is somehow flawed or not good enough. It is usually something else about Christianity that they find objectionable. Perhaps they think Scripture is historically unreliable, or that an all good and powerful God cannot be squared with evil, or that the Old Testament God is not worthy of worship, or some other intellectual objection.

Too good to be true?

The issue people have with the gospel seems to be it is, in a way, too good to be true. If I’m honest, I really sort of get this. It can almost feel too good to be true in the way of a fairy story or a myth.

It is indeed a good story. But, in contrast to a typical myth, it is objectively true.

This is exactly where C.S. Lewis found himself. He loved myth, as it is found in cultures throughout history. He had no problem with the gospel as myth, but he didn’t think it could be an explanation of the world since reality was, for him, explained by naturalistically by science. It wasn’t until J.R.R. Tolkien, et. al, convinced him to consider the gospel as a true myth.

A myth is a richly beautiful story that teaches us the purpose and meaning of life. It, in a way, enchants the world with value and purpose. But typically a myth is itself a fictional story or a metaphor. But it was the idea that Christianity is a factual myth, a myth that played out in a real place at a real time, a myth that actually enchants the world with real meaning, purpose and value, that set Lewis on his journey towards Christian belief.

The offense of the gospel

But there is of course a sense in which the gospel is an offense. That is, it is supremely humbling and often an affront to be told we are sinners and are, therefore, condemned by a holy God. We naturally want to say that we are not so bad and we certainly don’t want to yield control of our lives.

The gospel is indeed offensive in this way. And it often takes us realizing the depth of our sins to see our need. One doesn’t need good news unless one has become convinced of some significant bad news!

The the consequences of the gospel

So when we stop to consider the claims of Christianity, we realize these are extraordinarily big claims with extraordinary consequences. If true, our lives are simultaneously given a kind of infinite worth while simultaneously declaring our lives over, as they stand. In the Christian gospel, we are children of God with infinite value as image bearers but are also called to take up a cross as we walk towards the execution of our sinful selves.

The gospel is beautifully rich and grants eternal hope while being utterly humbling and, in a way, devastating to our temporal lives.

Now I realize I’ve given you no reason to think the gospel is true in this post. This is where apologetics comes in. But remember, it doesn’t have the power to save.

In a previous post, I claimed the most important thing to tell your kids when they doubt their faith is: they are normal!!! It is not a sickness or a sign of a spiritual flaw. It is an opportunity to grow in their understanding and faith, or so I argue.

But how do they grow in this?

There’s no question that’s off limits

My wife and I have a policy with our kids: they are allowed to ask any question they might have. There’s nothing—and I mean nothing—that is off limits. If one of our kids hears inappropriate language that he/she doesn’t understand, they are allowed to ask us what the words mean. If one of our kids doesn’t think something said in a Bible lesson or even in Scripture sounds right, they are allowed and encouraged to ask us.

Now, I will say sometimes we postpone answering the question. We have 4 kids ranging from middle school down to 1^st grade. So our 1^st grader may not be ready for a deep discussion about certain delicate topics and we may postpone an answer until we can talk privately with our middle schooler, for example. So they know they can ask anything they want to, but they also know they need to ask appropriately when little ears are around.

I want deep questions to feel familiar

Our hope with this is twofold.

One, we want to create a culture in our family where asking questions and thinking critically about their life and faith and all that this entails is normal. Here’s a critical moment in the life of a Christian kid who has embraced the faith of her parents. Let’s say she has read and is familiar with the gospels. But one day a person points out the differences in certain parallel passages of Scripture and claims these are contradictions. This can come as an absolute shock. She’s likely to wonder why this has never ever come up in all her years of Sunday School and church. She may even go on to suspect she’s been sold a bill of goods. How different would this be if she is quite aware of the differences and knows how they are reconciled?!

I want the hard questions about the faith to feel very familiar to my kids when they come up. I want them to have wrestled with these questions in my household, sometimes instigated by me, and not when confronted by the social pressures of a broader world hostile to Christian faith. They should be used to asking deep and difficult questions and be able to think for themselves before they become wholly confronted with a world which is happy to tell them all they should believe.

I want our kids to come to us

Second, we want to create a culture in our family where our kids come to us when they have questions. Every parent will, at some point, say to their kid, “Do this, because I said so!!” I actually think this is completely appropriate. It’s called parenting. A parent has the privilege and the right, in my view, to set the rules and a parent doesn’t need to always appeal to some further rational principle in telling the kids what they are to do.

However, I think saying, “Believe this, because I said so” is a really bad idea. Here’s why: if this authoritarian principle is your child’s guide for forming his beliefs and worldview, what happens when he is sitting in a biology or philosophy class with a professor who is hostile to his faith? You’ve literally taught your child to believe his authority figures, rather than to think critically about ideas, and now his authority figure is not you (or his pastor or youth pastor).

I want my kids to see me, among other things, as a reliable guide for life’s deep questions. The irony is that if I demand to be the just-because-I-said-so authority in their life, then I’m likely to be dismissed from this post at some point. But if I teach them to think critically for themselves, they are likely to come to me as they work out their worldview.

Resisting an unthinking and hostile world

We live in a post-Christian world. We also live, in many ways, in a post-rational world. Our culture is not one of pluralism and tolerance (in the good sense of these terms). There is one “right” view about almost everything (e.g., gender, sexuality, politics, morality, etc.). And fitting in to this is almost impossible to resist unless we plan to seclude and shelter our children from the rest of the world FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!!! OR we teach our kids to think critically so that they may see the truth, goodness and beauty of Christianity. I’m going with the latter.