Forcing kids to go to church

For as long as I can remember, my family has gone to church nearly every Sunday. Even while I’ve been away at college, I still went to church at the same pace. Yet, since I got back from college a few months ago, two of my sisters, 14 and 17, have been resisting going to church. My dad has been doing just about everything he can think of to get them to keep coming, but I’m beginning to wonder if he should be pushing so hard.



This situation reminds of something I heard years ago. I also grew up going to Awana, a Christian program for kids and teens. When I got to high school, I started helping at our church’s Awana program, after a short training session. One of the topics talked about was how tough it can be to get kids to come to the program. For example, the instructor talked about a kid who really wanted to come to Awana but his parents wouldn’t let him. They were forced to go to church when they were kids. The parents grew up hating everything about church, so they wanted to “protect” their children from it. This is obviously an extreme example, but we should still keep it in mind.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying we should let kids stop going to church as soon as say they don’t want to go. We should help our children develop faith, not just force them to go to church.

1 Peter 3
15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

This verse is talked about a lot in relation to apologetics and evangelism in the public arena, but not much is said about how this relates to our relationship with our children. If our children ask why they have to go to church, our answer should be more than ‘because I said so.’

Just forcing kids to go to church doesn’t help them develop their faith. If children grow up thinking of church as little more than a boring weekly ritual they were forced into, we can’t expect them to embrace church when they get older.

But even if we do everything we can to encourage faith in our children, they still may resist going to church at some point. We shouldn’t make the mistake of exasperating our children in our efforts to get them to go to church.

Colossians 3
21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.

If someone loses their desire to go to church, forcing them to go may push them farther away. Doing so may turn a mild lack of desire into an active disdain for anything related to it.

Like many areas of life, the right way to do things is also the hard way. It’s easy to drag your kids to church and assert you authority, it’s hard to teach them the value of going to church and assert your faith.

Keeping the peace and our faith

Starting this week, the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ) will be headed by a woman for the first time. Dr. Devorah Weissman will run the organization that tries to keep peace between Christians, Jews and now recently Muslims. Like Weissman said, her election is not the issue at stake. The issue is peace between the three religions. Below are a few quotes from Weissman.

There are assorted takes on the Torah, and each sees itself as most authentic, says Weissman. This notion is reflected in the Talmudic tradition, which embraces mahloket (dispute), she continues. "What is important is that we learn and understand that all approaches are legitimate and part of one tradition."

Just because people see their view as authentic doesn’t mean it is. Two contradictory views of truth and reality can’t both be right. Of course we shouldn’t impose our view on others, but that doesn’t mean we need to ‘learn and understand that all approaches are legitimate.’ We don’t need to have a relativistic view of religion to be effective peacemaker, and thinking all approaches are legitimate is naïve.

Also, how can two contradictory views be part of one tradition? If an approach contradicts a tradition, then it isn’t part of that tradition. If you want to be part of a tradition, you have to actually follow the beliefs of that tradition, not just believe you’re following it.

"I think that the humanistic approach is indeed closer because more xenophobic attitudes, which predominate in tribal societies, exist independent of the Torah. The message of loving the other, however, is where the Torah comes in."

The issues here are differences, communication and conflicts between religions. All three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, assert a supernatural view of life and religion. What’s the point of dealing with this situation with a humanistic approach? The humanistic approach automatically assumes all three religions are wrong. It reduces the religions to opinions and preferences of how life should be lived. They turn into personal, relativistic sets of philosophies.

But that’s not what the religions are and it’s not what they claim to be. Each religion makes claims about reality as a whole and our place in it. A humanist approach trivializes all three religions.

I’m sure xenophobic attitudes exist in these religions, but the situation is more complicated than that. It is possible to be opposed to a faith different than you own without being xenophopic, and accusing people in a religion trivializes them. This isn’t kist a fear of foreign customs or culture. These people believe their religion reflects reality and it’s their duty to tell others about it. Xenophobia is a oversimplification.

Being unbiased and diplomatic is a good goal, but Weissman and the ICCJ have taken it too far. They’ve made themselves ineffective by adopting philosophies that are out of touch with the people they are trying to help.

Anyone can say ‘All views are legitimate, so let’s just get along.’ It takes real wisdom, courage and communication skills to stand up for your beliefs and talk with someone who disagrees at the same time.

Does our opinion matter?

I’ve participated in many online discussions on religion over the years. The discussions are healthy to have, and they can be very deep and interesting if participants can refrain from posting simple things like "god sucks." A common flaw I’ve noticed is many people seem to take their opinions too seriously.



For a moment, let's take a step back. I won’t be talking about religion. I won’t say anything about who is right and who is wrong. I’m just talking about truth and reality, and the perception of them.

From those discussions, I’ve noticed a common element, a frequent phrase. “I don’t think God would make a hell”, “I don’t doubt there is a God, I just don’t think it’s the God of the Bible” and “I think religion is more or less a state of mind and soul” are common responses I’ve seen. Many of the statements have one thing in common: the focus on “I think” or “I don’t think.” Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with opinions. Opinions about things like religion are healthy, but they can only go so far.

For example, here is a video I found on youtube:



Consider this. Jay Leno has a popular segment on “The Tonight Show” where he asks random people on the street common knowledge questions. We see many people who have some interesting answers to the questions. Yet, no matter how much someone may think the South Pole is hotter than the equator, it just isn’t true.

We have two examples here. Either a supernatural creator exists or it doesn’t. Either the South Pole is warmer than the equator or it is not. Of course this doesn’t prove anything about the existence of God. But it does point something out: reality is not changed opinions. Even if the whole world has an opinion about reality, it wouldn’t change what reality is. Almost everyone believed the world was flat. Did that change the reality of it at all?

So what does that have to do with religious discussions? You can think whatever you want about the Bible, God, evolution, humanity and anything else, and you should express your thoughts in well written posts, but none of that means anything in the long run. Reality is what it is. The South Pole is quite cold. Humans came from somewhere, survival of the fittest or creation. One of those is a historical fact, something that actually happened. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because what you think sounds nice or logical means it's right.

Like I said, opinions are healthy. It is human nature to develop our own theories on how things work. Just be careful with what you do with those opinions. Remember that what we all “think”, myself included, has no effect on the reality of what is. Reality is the way it is, regardless of what we think about it.

Online mission field

Online message boards and forums might be the next great mission field.

At first glance, the Gametrailers forums doesn’t seem like a place open to ministry. The members are mostly male, between the ages of 13 and about 24 and many play games for hours a day. But they kept bringing up religion. When I first joined Gametrailers about 4 years ago, forum members were posting threads on religion on a fairly regular basis. Most of the threads turned into arguments and were soon locked. Eventually, the forum moderators realized there’s a strong demand among members to talk about these topics and locking the threads was too much of a hassle. They created a section just for religion and philosophy. Since then, it has been very active with a wide variety of discussions.

Gametrailers is just one example of a site that has nothing to do with religion but still made a religion section because of the demand from its members.

Problems with this ministry: Each one of these communities is like their own country. They have their own history, culture, leaders and laws. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply. The sites are generally open to a variety of topics, but most will ban you if they feel you’re only there to convert people.

Just because a forum has a religion section, that doesn’t mean you can openly proselytize. Just like any mission field, you will need to take it slow, get to know the culture and people and tell them about the gospel when the time is right. Even if you take every possible precaution, you still might get banned.

One of the best things about this possible ministry is it’s flexible to any situation. If you attend a decent size church, especially one with a youth group, there are probably a few members who post on forums. Just find out who posts on forums and teach a few classes on apologetics and evangelism.

This is still just speculation. We don’t know enough about this to say how it may or may not work. But that doesn’t mean Christians shouldn’t do anything it. Hundreds, probably thousands, of people online are asking questions about religion and Christians need to be online with them and ready to respond.

Dealing with Neopaganism

I knew neopaganism was a fast growing, non-traditional religious movement, but I didn’t realize how strange its philosophy is.

The Denver Post recently ran a story on the trend. A whole book could be written on neopaganism, the article even mentions one that has been written, but I’m just going to pick a few quotes and examine them.

Druids were the priests of the ancient Celts. The essence of [Jesse] Walter's modern druid faith, he said, is that ‘people's perception of reality is what makes reality.’ He said he religiously avoids negative thoughts.

A rock is a rock regardless of how we perceive it. The earth has always been round even though most people perceived it as flat for thousands of years. Those things, and millions of others, are based on facts existing outside our perceptions. Atheism, theism and polytheism all make claims about facts existing outside the perceptions of people. If the realities of geology, astronomy, biology and many other sciences exist outside our perceptions, why would the realities of supernatural beings, or lack thereof, be any different?

Reality exists without us perceiving it, and it isn’t changed by our perceptions. It doesn’t really matter if we don’t like part of reality. Our tastes, desires and opinions of what is fair or right have never changed anything about reality.

‘You'll get no agreement on how Wiccans see God — or Goddess,’ [Carridwen] Brennan said. ‘In Wicca, there is no 'you have to' and 'you can't.' There is no orthodoxy.’

If something is ‘orthodox,’ it conforms to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved. The quote above about perception making reality is orthodoxy. A common neopagan ethic is “As long as it harms none, do what you will.” That is also orthodoxy. If you say you’re a Wiccan or Druid, two branches of neopaganism, then you are conforming to the beliefs, attitudes or modes of conduct associated with those groups.

‘It's important to have a spiritual path that's working for you,’ Brennan said. ‘We all need a connection to something greater than ourselves.’

Our of all the quotes, I think this is the strangest one, especially after comparing it with the previous quotes. First, our perception of reality is what makes reality. Then, we all need a connection to something greater than ourselves. Don’t those two concept contradict each other?

If you want to connect with something greater than yourself, you have to have an open mind. You need to open your mind to the possibility that reality may not be how you expected. You have to be willing to accept there are some realities you don’t like. You can’t make a connection with something bigger than yourself if you keep your mind closed to anything you disagree with or don’t like. If you constrain your beliefs to your own tastes and desires, you will never connect with anything bigger than yourself.

2012 and the apocalypse

On December 21, 2012, the world as we know it will end. The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar will complete its thirteenth b'ak'tun cycle since it started about 5,000 years ago, which was when this prediction was originally made. It’s unclear whether this event will destroy the world, or transition it into a new state.

This prediction comes from Mayan cultures, but many other cultures have embraced it. A Dutch-language newspaper recently spoke to thousands of people who believe the prediction. Many of those interviewed have started stocking up on emergency supplies like life rafts and other equipment.

If the prediction turns out to be true, it will be a huge event. But if it’s false, the date will be the start of a great missionary opportunity. Either way, the date will have a significant impact on millions of people’s worldview. Many people who grew up believing a religion that follows this prediction will suddenly start questioning that belief system.

When missionaries starts witnessing to people, one of the first things they do is get the person to examine their beliefs. What do I believe? Do my beliefs make sense when compared with each other and the world? What impact have I seen from my belief? Those are all questions we all need to ask at some point in our life. We have the time to ask them at our own pace, but everyone who believes that prediction will be abruptly confronted with them.

We also have to consider that if the date turns out to be nothing, atheists and naturalists will jump on it and use it as further proof religion and anything supernatural is false.

The date could also turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If large groups of people believe the world is about to end, we might see some rioting and looting. If those situations get bad enough, the followers of the religion might see it as a fulfillment of the prophecy.

No matter what happens, it’s going to be a very interesting holiday season.

Obama and the Bible in public life

I usually try to avoid writing about politics, religion and philosophy are a better fit for me, but this election season has repeatedly brought the two topics together. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson accused Barack Obama of ‘distorting’ the Bible.

Here’s the quote in question from Obama’s 2006 speech:

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now. Folks haven't been reading their Bible.

So unless we somehow follow all the teachings of the Old Testament or say the Bible contradicts itself, we’re not reading our Bible?

Biblical principles can be applied to every area of life, but that doesn’t mean every single point of public policy should be dictated by the Bible. In Romans, Paul said we should submit to the government’s authority as long as it doesn’t contradict God’s teaching. God doesn’t give specific instructions on taxes, immigration or many other issues.

To be fair, the point of Obama’s speech was to contradict the secular argument that people shouldn’t bring religion into public life. Our religion or philosophy, whatever it may be, affects every area of our life. Even if it doesn’t give specific instructions, the questions of equality, authority and priority shapes every decision we make. So Obama’s point is a valid and important one.

But the point is weakened by the attitude that the Bible contradicts itself. If someone accepts the Bible as a source of wisdom and teaching that can help guide one’s life, yet also thinks it contradicts itself, which side of the contradiction are they following? They are following the teaching or principle that appeals to their own predetermined logic and morals. That means we’re dealing with people who think they are appealing to some higher authority, but in reality are only following themselves.


Religion and philosophy should be a bigger part of public life, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re following the Bible just because you quote a few verses. If you claim to follow Biblical teachings, then you should actually follow them, not your own version of what you think they mean. The Bible was written in a different language and a very different culture. You can’t follow the Bible unless you deal with those factors.

There are many articles that explain those ‘contradictions’ Obama brought up. I’ll try to briefly explain a few, but if you want more complete explanations, do a search for some articles.

The slavery the Bible refers to was vastly different than the more recent American slavery. It wasn’t based on race and it wasn’t a forced lifetime of servitude. Many people sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. Their masters released them after a set amount of time. If the slave liked the master, he or she could choose work for the family longer.

The Old Testaments has many teachings on what not to eat and proper hygiene, like regularly washing hands. Considering they didn’t know anything about germs back then, those teachings probably kept many people healthy.