Motivation

(I am writing this post to my Christian brothers and sisters.  Unless you know Jesus, and follow him as saviour and Lord, then much of what I say here will be somewhat meaningless.  If you do follow him, then I think that you're in the same position as me - bound by our relationship with Jesus to follow his way, speak his truth and to obey his commands.
At the same time, I hope that non-Christian readers will understand my motivation in opposing same-sex marriage.  I am not a hate-filled bigot.  I am simply not content to leave one of God's creatures in a snare if anything I say or write can help that.)

The gay marriage debate comes over as fundamentally selfish. I'm not talking primarily about proponents, but about many opponents of gay marriage, often professing Christians.  I don't know if this facebook commenter is a Christian (probably not, given the way he talks about "you" and "your"), but this is the tenor of a lot of the discussion on the topic:

... if you are an orthodox christian with problems about Gay marriage follow your own Dam book and turn the other cheek, it is not going to affect you or your place "in God's Kingdom". Or a decidedly more Australian way to put it "Take a teaspoon of cement and harden the F$%k up!"

In other words: "It's not going to affect you", so shut up about it all.


And often our response is "yes it will affect us, and this is how...".  It is a self-centred response.


But let's leave that to one side for now and assume that an amendment permitting same-sex marriages would not affect anyone except those people entering into a same-sex marriage.  What then?  Would we all hold our peace and get on with our (self-centred) lives?

Why we can't just turn the other cheek

The phrase that the commenter refered to comes from Jesus' teaching about the right response when someone wrongs you in Matthew 5:38-48.  Jesus' refers to the Old Testament rules about punishment and retribution ("an eye for an eye"), which was always a limiting rule - any punishment or retaliation must not exceed the measure of the original wrong.  Jesus then turns it on its head, saying that we should prefer to suffer double wrong than to seek any measure of retribution.  He goes on to command his followers to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them.

So immediately we can see two things:

1. Jesus' words about turning the other cheek apply when we are wronged.  I cannot see how it has any application to the content of the marriage debate in Australia. (Although there may be plenty of opportunity to practice this teaching in responding to personal attacks during the debate!)   The debate itself about setting future public policy.  
2. Jesus' words about loving our enemies still have general application.  (At least, I assume they do - I consider those opposed to me in the debate as opponents rather than enemies, but I see no reason that the principle would be any different).  What does it mean to "love my enemies" in the context of the marriage debate?

The common understanding of being loving towards others (at least as that applies in the context of the marriage debate) is of leaving the other in peace to live life by his own lights, or according to his own choices.  It is most usually expressed in secular debate by the word "tolerance".  But tolerance falls very far short of love.  One can only tolerate something or someone of whom one doesn't approve.  You might tolerate someone else's whiny, smelly, grasping and selfish toddler; you don't tolerate your own - you love her.  So you take care to correct the whiny, selfish behaviour.  You stoop to the indignity of changing the dirty nappy and cleaning up your child.  Tolerance, or leaving someone in peace, does not show love - it shows indifference.

So I do not show love to my opponent in the marriage debate by leaving them alone, by tolerating their argument.  How do I show love in this context?  And why?

What is love?

I've already claimed that love is not the same as tolerance.  So what is love?


Biblically, love is most vividly in God's actions, as Father and Son, to restore the rebellious humanity to a relationship with him.  We are told in the bible that God created all things good (Genesis 1 and 2), but that humanity rebelled against its creator, choosing instead to follow its own lights and to try to become like God (Genesis 3 onwards!).  Humans wilfully obscured their knowledge of God.  They deserved to be rejected by God, and left to dwindle and die, cut off from the source of life, goodness and joy.


But God pursued his creation, refusing to see them left in the snare of their conceit and pride.  He chose a specific people group in the middle east (the Israelites, descended from Abraham: Genesis 12), and promised that from these people, a blessing for all the world would come. Notwithstanding that privileged relationship, Israel continued to rebel against God.


Ultimately, God himself came to earth: Jesus Christ.  He lived amongst the people he created, taught amongst them, healed them, drove out demons, and fed them.  Jesus lived a life of perfect obedience and submission to God's word - that life that all humanity should have lived.  


But the people still rejected God, and put Jesus to death in a painful, humiliating fashion reserved only for the worst of criminals.  Jesus willingly accepted this death, as the means of restoring his people to God.  By this self-sacrifice, Jesus made his perfect record of obedience to anyone that would cast their lot in with him.  He took on himself the rejection and death that our rebellion deserved.  It was a place swap, like Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton in Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, only infinitely greater.


And then the seal on the whole arrangement: God raised Jesus from death.  Those who have (and continue to) cast their lot in with him are beyond the clutches of rebellion (sin) and its consequences (death), and enjoy a restored relationship with God.  In fact we are called children of God!  This is a completely free gift - not earned at all by its recipients (us), and in fact entirely beyond our capacity to earn.


So this is love: God's action in laying down his own honour, glory, comfort, and life, for the sake of his creatures who deserve the reverse.

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

Sadly there are many who refuse the gift, and prefer instead the lesser status of a petty King in their own life.  Many do so, blinded by things or ideas that continue to promise: this will make you happy, will give you control, will give you security, will give you comfort, will let you regulate your own life by your own lights, will make you like a little god in your own world.

• Some people are caught by wealth, spending their lives pursuing more things, more money, more financial security.
• Some are caught by a desire for novelty - travel, food, leisure activities.  Always pursuing the next thing that will distract from the reality of life.
• Some are caught by addictions - drugs, alcohol etc.
• Some are caught by sex - promiscuity, adultery, homosexual behaviour.

The bible, in multiple passages, warns that these are all snares that can and do trap people, distracting them from God and causing them to reject the free gift of a friendship with God through trusting Jesus.  As such, the snares are deadly - unless a person is freed from such a snare, the result is alienation from God and, ultimately, death.  Or, to use another metaphor, they are all poisonous fruit of the same poisoned tree.  That tree is the rebellion against God that is a deep-seated part of human nature; the fruit are the various "sins" that are spoken of.  Christians have a responsibility to warn people of these dangers - to do otherwise is neglectful and unloving.


So the link with the same-sex marriage debate is this: I believe that all expressions of sexual conduct outside of biblically defined marriage are forms of this trap that leads to death.  Society generally does not accept this, and is permissive of many different sexual arrangements. But in so doing, society contributes to the strength of the trap by rendering it less visible.  That is so, because a person will not seek an escape until she perceives a danger.  In the same-sex marriage context, a societal sanction of homosexual unions by equating them with marriage removes one of the warning signs that shows it to be a snare, drawing a person away from God.  


So one of the roles of the church, of the Christian, is to point out the danger, and to resist the gently lullaby by which society tranquilises those who are ensnared.  Specifically, this means arguing against same-sex marriage, and constantly pointing to the need for Jesus.

Some objections

Non-christian, heterosexual marriages.  

One facebook commenter wrote:

If gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage to Christians as it is a "Christian Tradition" then by the same token so must Hindi, Muslim, Taoist unions must be similarly abhorrent to your god. Marriage is a tradition that predates Christianity (if you believe in Science) and to claim ownership over what is considered by most (these days) as a legally binding union (not an anthropomorphic bound union) seems unfair.

I think this objection misunderstands both the Christian claims about marriage, and the Christian motivation for opposing gay marriage.

1. Christianity claims that marriage was ordained by God at the beginning of humanity's existence as being a union between one man and one woman, until ended by death, to the exclusion of all others.  It was a gift given to all of humanity, not just to the Christian community.  It was a gift given before the Christian church began, and before Jesus walked the earth.  As such, marriages contracted in other societies and religious traditions are still valid marriages, as they adhere to the "creation ordinance".  Gay marriage simply doesn't.  As Christians believe that marriage was created by God, they believe that humanity is not free to redefine it.
2. Some of the Christian discussion about gay marriage is about the risk it poses of devaluing marriage as an institution.  I note that some non-Christian opponents to same-sex marriage make a similar point.  It may well be the case (although I've assume not for the purpose of this blog post only!).  My point is that, whether it does or not, Christians will continue to oppose it - not because it's abhorrent to God and he needs the caped crusaders to come in a fight on his side.  We will oppose it because of the danger it poses to those caught in the trap of the idolisation of sex.  We oppose it, therefore, for the same reason that we oppose all rebellion against God - out of love and concern for the rebels.

The bible might be true for you, but not for me

Throughout this post, I have referred often (albeit generally) to the bible, and it should be clear that I accord it a very high authority.  I am aware that most people do not, and so much of my argument rests on assumptions that will be rejected.  But my purpose is not to convince you of the strength of my argument, but to show that my motivation for opposing same-sex marriage is not hatred, but love.  My purpose is to show that, given my assumptions and the evidence I accept as trustworthy, my claim is supportable by reason.  You might disagree with my actions, my words and my conclusions, but please have the decency and honesty to accept that I act out of love, not hatred or fear.

It is unloving to force your morality on me - Jesus never did that

I agree.  Jesus did not force other people to live moral lives.  Jesus did not exercise political power.  But Jesus never drew back from telling the truth.  Having saved the woman caught in adultery from stoning, he told her to "go, and sin no more".  During his trial, when Jesus was struck by one of the guards, he did not retaliate (ie, he turned the other cheek), but he also challenged the man: 

"If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong.  But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

So in arguing for the traditional description of marriage, I am following Jesus' example in telling the truth, even where that is unpopular.


Am I forcing morality on someone?  No.  I see a danger.  I warn of consequences.  I do what I can to keep the cultural undergrowth from obscuring the snare.  The freedom of others to choose their actions is intact.


And if the laws change?  Well, as I argued here, the nature of our democracy is such that all citizens have a right and obligation to argue their viewpoints, and that our institutions are strongest when that occurs.  Participation in those democratic processes is not force.

Conclusion (finally)

This has been a long post.  I suspect that it will have persuaded no-one to change their opinion on same-sex marriage.  But I do hope that those of us who follow Jesus can see the importance of standing up for our beliefs - not for our own benefit, or to defend God's honour or our social way of life, but out of love and concern for those who are perishing.

And I hope that those who disagree with me might nonetheless be able to see that, from within my own worldview, I am acting out of love, not hate.

In need of a Saviour too

I drove past a sign the other day:

My first thought was: “who can disagree with that?” Then, thinking further, it's also a statement that is nearly impossible to agree with! At least, any number of people might agree with the statement, without agreeing with each other. Do we all agree on what the “positive direction” is?

I want to make a case that:

• There is only one positive direction for our children (and indeed for all of us): to God through Jesus Christ. 
• As parents, we will be held to account for our leadership of our children – either toward or away from Jesus. 
• As a church, it is a vital part of our mercy mission to help parents discharge this duty, and to help children start in the right direction. 

One positive direction

All people are in terrible danger. All people are at risk of great judgement, wrath and punishment. All people are rebels against God, trying to wriggle out from His rightful authority and establish their own rule in God's place. Paul puts it succinctly in Romans 3:23:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

But surely this doesn't apply to children! Children are so innocent, so trusting, so good. Surely Paul is only talking about grown-ups? This is a tempting objection, because it plays to closely held cultural values about childhood. But to accept it requires us to ignore the plain language Paul uses here and elsewhere in Romans (eg. 3:9-18). It also requires us to ignore the consistent teaching of the bible elsewhere. Here is one example from Psalm 51:

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (v. 5)

If David, a man whose heart was fully devoted to the Lord, can write this, then it is clear that the description applies generally to all people.

So children are alienated from God, just as adults are. They too are “without hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12), unless they too are “brought near through the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13).

Society and the church have too often been satisfied with the lesser benefit of keeping a child out of trouble. As long as a child or teen doesn't get arrested, get drunk, or have a child out of wedlock, we think that the child is turning out OK – the more so if a child makes some positive contribution through music, sport, work or school. We have seen already that this obscures a child's separation from God, and his or her great need to be saved!

The remedy, the only “positive direction”, is to hear and believe the gospel – to trust in the person that gospel proclaims! As Paul wrote: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” (Romans 1:16) And Peter proclaimed: “Salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12).

The instruction of the Lord

Parents bear a heavy burden in ensuring that their children have a chance to hear the gospel and respond. This is clear common sense – who else spends as much time with a child as a parent? Who else is the child's first and most important role model? Whose words sink deepest into a child's heart, and exert the greatest influence over the person that child grows to be?

The bible emphasises this common-sense conclusion with a command and a warning. The command we see in Ephesians 6:4: “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” The warning is implicit in Mark 9:42: “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.” Jesus said this while holding a little child (see verse 36), which adds a sharp edge to his words!

So parents are charged with the responsibility of bringing their children up in the Lord, and are warned not to be the cause of sin in their lives! Not something to take lightly.

But is this too much to put on parents? Don't children themselves bear some responsibility? And what about the church, doesn't the church have to reach out to children as well?

Firstly, the responsibility of children. Of course, they must make their own response to Jesus in due course. But this does not absolve parents of their responsibility. As Paul writes in Romans 10:14:

“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”

What's more, the capacity to believe in Jesus is itself a God-given gift, outside the control of the parents: “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8). We rightly celebrate God's greatness and goodness whenever anyone turns to Christ and is saved!

Parents are not responsible for results – they are responsible for their own obedience in presenting the gospel to their kids.

Where does the church fit in?

Secondly, the role of the church. There are two main jobs for the church in this area:

• Preparing God's people for works of service (Eph 4:12), particularly preparing parents for the task of leading their children towards Christ! 
• Going into the world to make disciples (Matt 28:19) – including of children and particularly of those children who will not hear of Jesus from their parents! 

We must do these things because God has commanded them. But aside from that, it is good sense to reach out to children and to parents of children. People become more set in their ways as they grow older. Reaching children when they are still young gives them the greatest opportunity to respond positively to Jesus, relatively free from the prejudices and attitudes that harden as they grown older. Twelve seems to be the crucial age. We need to be showing primary-school aged children the wonder and glory of God, and inviting them to accept Jesus as Saviour and King!

icky jobs

I'm talking to the kids at St Aidan's this Sunday about Jesus washing the disciples feet (John 13:1-17). What fun can't you have telling a story to a bunch of 5-9 year olds about an insanely disgusting cleanup job.


It feels like I've known the story from my mother's womb - just before the last supper, Jesus knows he's on the way to the cross, he strips off and washes the road grime, mud and animal droppings off his disciples' sweaty, stinky feet. Peter protests; he's overruled. Jesus tells his disciples to mimic his humble actions.  


I've always seen it as an example Jesus set us to follow, so my thinking has usually been - "knowing this story, what do I need to do to copy Jesus' example? How should I be serving others?"


But this time, I was struck by something new: 

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” 

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

John 13:6-8

Jesus answer to Peter doesn't make sense if he is just setting an example to follow.  Jesus can hardly be saying: "Come on Simon, I need to make a point here!  Just cooperate."  By the time he'd got to Peter, he'd already washed enough feet to make his point.


No, Jesus' act was more than an example to follow (although it is that too).  Jesus was acting out a parable. This event is firstly about what Jesus does for me and you, and then secondly about what we do in response to and imitation of him.


He lowered himself to the meanest level, to clean his followers' feet, ready for the great supper that was prepared for them.


And the following day, he suffered an even greater humiliation to carry out an even greater cleansing, to prepare an even greater number of followers for an even greater banquet!


Are you one of them?

Meeting the King

I had grown up knowing that Jesus was my saviour. My church and Sunday school taught faithfully that I can't live up to God's standards, but that through Jesus I had a way back to God. As I passed through my teens and early twenties, the evidence of my life showed how far short I fell. So it was a great comfort to me to know that my sin-debt was paid by Jesus on the cross, and that I was adopted as a son of God. What great news!


Problem was, hardly anyone would've been able to tell the difference. Why, given such good news, did my attitude and behaviour not change much at all?


I'd only understood half the story (although I'm sure that my church taught me the whole truth).

C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis once wrote of himself:

A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.

That is also true of casual Christians (like me) who try to retain authority over their lives.


One year, my wife bought me a new NIV bible for my birthday. It had a “bible-in-a-year” reading plan in the back, which I followed. As I read chronologically from Genesis to Revelation, my eyes were opened to some of the great truths of Jesus:

• Jesus the life-giver, who met me and raised me and restored me when I was helpless to do those things myself;
  
• Jesus the go-between, who bridges the yawning chasm between me and God;
  
• Jesus the ransom-payer, who had bought me from my enslavement to sin and death and now owned me;
  
• Jesus the King, who owes me nothing, to whom I owe everything, to whom I can deny nothing.
  

There was no way I could read this and stay the same.


Jesus didn't pick me up, set me on my feet, pat me on the back and wish me luck on my way. Jesus tells me to count the cost of being his disciple, to abandon friends, family, comfort and even life (Lk14:25-33). He tells me that I am no longer my own, but that I have been bought at a great price (1 Cor 6:19,20).


And so began the process of abandoning myself – of abandoning my Self – and acknowledging Jesus as my King, as well as my saviour. So began the exhilarating adventure of truly living for His glory and for the good of others. So began the truly surprising realisation that in giving up my plans, desires and dreams – in giving up my life – I get it all back, richer and more joy-filled than before.

Fear at a 7-year-old's birthday party

Ok, so I'm not writing about the abundance of pink frills, girly squeals and kids tripping out on food colouring.  Although these are pretty fearsome things, they were in moderation at Eldest's birthday last week.  (And in the case of the food colouring, completely eliminated due to the brilliance of my wife and some strategically placed blueberry skins and raspberry jam).  No, the chilling topic today is the far more prosaic habit of children to try to scare themselves silly with ghost stories.

There are 0 ghosts in this picture.

We recently had four 7-year-olds and one 5-year-old huddled together in the darkened bedroom, with only a torch for protection, persuading each other that if they looked just right, they could see an eyelash.  That's right, THE EYELASH GHOST IS COMING!  Five little girls come pelting out of the bedroom, clutching at my legs for protection from disembodied optical follicles.  


"There's a ghost in my bedroom, Dad!  Friend#1 saw it.  It's real."
"Darling, there are no ghosts in this house, we don't let them in here.  Now what do you want on your pizza?"
"But it spoke to Friend#2, Dad.  I'm scared."


7-year-olds are really persistent.  So of course I exorcised the ghost as any good Dad would - turned on the lights, confiscated the torch, told the girls that ghosts weren't real and to come to the table and eat some dinner.  (I suppose I could've got my wife's eyelash curler and fought the ghost valiantly with that, but as the idea has only just occurred to me, I'm three days late with that bit of parenting brilliance.  Feel free to use it yourself if you haven't yet had your brush with 7-year-old eyelash ghosts.)


The whole incident would have passed with nothing more than a roll of the eyes if it hadn't been for the persistence of my daughters' fears after Friends#1, #2 and #3 had all left.  Suddenly we don't want to go to bed, because the ghost is in the room.  We don't want Dad to leave the room, because of the ghost.  What to do?


Plan 1.1, as usual, is: raise voice, issue ultimatum, and think up some suitably fearful consequence for disobedience (gotta be pretty big to compete with ghost-fear!).  Then I remember that I'm trying to wean myself off plan 1.1 - it just takes so long to do the job, and produces too much bad-parent-guilt.  So I try the newfangled plan 2.0.  It's hardly even out of the box, and I definitely didn't read the instruction manual, so I'm winging it.


"You know there's no such thing as ghosts, don't you?"
"But Friend#1 said she saw it."
"There are no ghosts.  I know, because they're not in the bible.  People think that a ghost is a dead person who has come back.   The bible says that when we die, with either go to be with Jesus if we love him (like you and me), or we go to hell if we didn't.  The people who go to be with Jesus stay there, and the bible also says that the people who go to hell can't get out of there.  So you see there's no way a ghost could come back to be here - they're all either with Jesus or in hell!"
(Brilliant!  This plan is working beautifully already!)


"But Friend#1 saw one!"
(Aha, I think, mistakes and misperceptions... )  "Whatever she thought she saw, it couldn't be a ghost, because they're either in hell or with Jesus."  (Quick, what else could it have been?)  "You know how God created angels, and some of them went bad like satan, well there are demons.  They're real."  (Uh, oh - this isn't going so well - from ghosts, which are a bit weird-scary, to demons which are, well, demonic.)
My poor scared little 5-year-old doesn't have any words left - just great big blue eyes.
"Here, lets read this promise that Jesus made" and so we read together from John 6:37-40.  We talk about how Jesus beat satan and demons, and that we now don't need to fear them because He keeps us safe.  We talk about how he promises never to let us go or lose us.  We sing the Colin Buchanan version of those verses.  And she settles down to sleep.  There is power in the word of God.


Epilogue
Driving last night in the car, the ghost theme came up again.  5-year-old protests: "There are no ghosts.  They're all in hell". 


Well, near enough.

Chicken, chicken or chicken?

To my Middle Child, everything is chicken.  We had a beef curry tonight, and she asked for more chicken.  We eat roast lamb and her favourite part is the chicken.  We eat grilled salmon and she wants more ... you guessed it ... chicken.  When we have murgh makhani ... you get the picture.


So I guess we ate a lot of chicken dishes when she was forming her view of dinner.  And every time we said "eat some more chicken", it cemented the idea more firmly that the delicious protein-laden stuff in her bowl is chicken.


Which got me thinking about other word associations we use - most pressingly "God" and "Father".  God, in his wisdom, revealed himself in the Bible as "Father".  Since having kids of my own, the sheer weight of that floors me every now and again.  For better or worse, their view of God will be significantly shaped by the way I speak and act.  


Dads: your child's first view of God will be a version of your behaviour toward them and toward others in their presence.  There might be time for their view of God to mature, but you are their starting point.


Will our children see God as absent?  Distant?  Stern?  Loving?  Only interested in rules?  A weak pushover without rules?  Cruel or abusive?  Consistent (or in-)?  Honest?  Selfish (or -less)?

... whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.       Matt 18:6

The Coles car park miracle

I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway.  Romans 7:18-19

You know it's going to be a memorable meltdown when it happens in the middle of the Coles car park.  


Go back about an hour, and peace reigns.  We're just arriving at the car park.  My two daughters have agreed to swap car seats on the return journey.


In the present, we have climbed back into the car and Eldest's promise of swapping seats is forgotten.  Each of my little princesses is implacable and very vocal.  The volume is rising rapidly.  It's clear that I need to hold Eldest to her word, and restore peace soon.  But what to do?


The larger part of me is gearing up to issue the ultimatum.  My imagination whirs as I reach for some consequence for disobedience that will secure compliance and quiet.  But for some reason, I pause.


"You know what the right thing is to do, don't you?"  I ask Eldest.
"Yes," she says.  "But I just don't want to do it.  It's too hard."  Her voice is small.  How can she fight herself? She is evenly matched.
So we pray.  All four of us pray together that Eldest will have the strength to do what's right.  We pray that her will can overcome her desires.  That we will wait patiently while she wages this battle.  


Number Two is not quite five, and things are dragging a bit.  I can hear the complaint making its way from her mind to her mouth ...
"Just wait, honey," I interrupt her.  "We need to give Eldest some time.  This is really important.  It's about the sort of person she will grow up to be."
So we wait; and Eldest prays and wrestles.


Then as quickly as it all blew up, it's over.  "You can have my seat."  She speaks quietly, but decidedly.


Battle over; battle won.  Thank you Holy Spirit.

what does Mum want with my tooth?

"The tooth fairy isn't made up.  She really exists!  I mean, it's not like your parents take your tooth."

The wisdom and logic of one of my daughter's seven-year-old friends.  Little blonde and brunette heads all nodded sagely along.  I mean, there really is only two ways to explain the missing teeth and miraculous money: parents or tooth fairy.  And we can't see any reason why the parents would want the teeth, can we ...?

I overheard this conversation without joining it.  There are all sorts of awkward ramifications in shattering the childhood illusions of children outside ones jurisdiction.  But it did get me thinking - what is my position on the tooth fairy or santa claus?  If I encourage my kids to believe in them, am I lying?  Will that jeopardise their later belief in Jesus?  Or is it all an innocent childhood stage that my kids will pass through unscathed, happy to have had some childhood magic to look back upon?

So, of course, I consulted the blogosphere.  What a variety of opinions!  There was an atheist blogger who worried that the tooth fairy and santa claus stories were somehow a trojan horse that would make it more likely that kids would believe in God.  There were Christian bloggers and commenters who worried that telling their kids about santa would cause them later to discard belief in God.  (Surely both can't be right!).  One mother is content to go along with her sons' imaginations (as she does for fictitious super heroes etc), and to use the result as raw material in the cut and thrust of raising kids.  And a number of atheist sites (here, here and here) airily proclaimed that the tooth fairy, santa claus, god and the easter bunny are all the same - inventions for which there is no rational evidence.

To my mind, there are two big issues that I need to sort out:

1. Truth-telling, and modelling truth-telling.
2. Giving my kids a reason for the hope that I have (see 1 Peter 3:15)

First: truth-telling.  I want to tell the truth, because only telling the truth will honour God.  I also want my children to be people of integrity and truth as they grow up.  This will have to inform how I approach the issue with my kids - I don't think I can tell them that the tooth fairy will turn up and give them money for their teeth. Is it different if they want to put a tooth under the pillow for the tooth fairy, and I replace the tooth with money: playing along?  What if the whole tooth fairy conversation is understood as imagination and make-believe, in the same manner that we play pirates or princesses?  I guess this is an issue that each parent (and each couple) must grapple with, focusing on the underlying principles of telling the truth and honouring God.  It will depend as much on the culture in my family as on the character of my children.

Secondly: the evidence.  I think that the atheist blogs have the solution to the problem half-right.  That is, they demand that a belief have a basis in evidence for it to be rational, and will discard the belief if not satisfied with the evidence.  In my opinion, they go wrong in claiming that there is no evidence for a belief in God.  There is ample evidence all around that God exists, and significant evidence in the historical record that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and is one with God.  That he died and rose again to life.  This is material for another post, and many people have already dealt with this subject far better than I ever will (for example, Lee Strobel with his "Case for" series; Dr John Dickson's "The Christ Files"; the Centre for Public Christianity).

So I suppose, over the coming 9+ years of teeth loss in my family, I have the dual challenge of maintaining childhood magic for my children without lying to them; and giving them the evidential basis and critical thinking capacity to distinguish between the fairytales and the truth of the gospel.

Grandfather prays in Hebrew ...

I was reading Judges 2:10-15 recently, and was struck by how quickly the Israelites turned away from God.  I mean, their grandfathers had seen the 10 plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea.  Their fathers had wandered in the desert, been fed miraculously by manna from heaven, and had seen the miraculous conquest of the promised land.  Yet this generation "knew neither the LORD, nor what he had done for Israel" and "did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals."  And that incurred God's wrath.


It put me in mind of a comment attributed to Rabbi Jonathan Sachs:  "Grandfather prays in Hebrew, Father prays in English, Son no longer prays and Grandson is no longer Jewish".  (Gotta love the internet!)


I guess the pressure to be just like everyone else is pretty strong wherever and whenever you live.


What's the solution?  Please let me know - my own kids are too young yet for me to know if they will keep the infant faith they are showing now.  I pray they will!


One man (with kids now in their early 20s) told me that he and his wife tried to show that their faith in Christ was real and living - it made a difference to how they lived.  So these parents would read their bibles in the common parts of the house, where the kids would see.  They prayed with and for their kids.  I guess, as time went by, they explained decisions based on their faith in Jesus.


What has your experience been?