Christianity and a Child’s “Why” Question
Christianity and following Jesus should be easy and simple enough for a child to understand, entailing that Christianity should be able to provide a simple and easy answer to the quintessential “why” question that children pose.
A child’s “why” question can be positive or negative. On the positive side, it reflects genuine curiosity and the desire to understand. In this sense, “why” is a springboard for exploration, discovery, development, and independence. On the negative side, it may merely express boredom, irritation, or attention-seeking. Children intuitively know that incessant “why” questions put everyone on the back foot, and they have no qualms about unleashing them for various negatively-inspired reasons.
In light of the above, Christianity should possess easy and simple answers to a child’s positively inspired “why” questions. It should be able to supply comprehensible and satisfying responses to a child who seeks authentic understanding, all without elevating itself beyond a child’s cognitive abilities and comprehension.
Moreover, Christianity must be able to address the question of motive—particularly God’s motive for Creation and the motive for Jesus’ creation of Heaven—because motive lies at the crux of all the positively-inspired “why” questions that children pose. Children are likely far more interested in the reasons that inspired God to create rather than the “how” or “what” of God’s Creation.
Unfortunately, Christianity tends to balk at questions concerning God’s motive for Creation. The framework of conventional/traditional Christian assumptions renders nonsensical all “why” questions about God’s motives. It cannot provide a simple and easy answer to a child’s question of why God made Creation because it does not recognize the question as valid.
Sidestepping such “why” questions may have been acceptable in the past when men were in different modes of consciousness; however, invalidating the question as nonsensical because it contradicts dominant Christian assumptions is no longer justifiable.
Rather than dismiss such “why” questions outright, perhaps Christianity should step back and reassess its core assumptions—in particular, assumptions that automatically negate the perfectly justifiable lines of inquiry concerning motive that are embedded in a child’s “why” questions.
A child’s “why” question can be positive or negative. On the positive side, it reflects genuine curiosity and the desire to understand. In this sense, “why” is a springboard for exploration, discovery, development, and independence. On the negative side, it may merely express boredom, irritation, or attention-seeking. Children intuitively know that incessant “why” questions put everyone on the back foot, and they have no qualms about unleashing them for various negatively-inspired reasons.
In light of the above, Christianity should possess easy and simple answers to a child’s positively inspired “why” questions. It should be able to supply comprehensible and satisfying responses to a child who seeks authentic understanding, all without elevating itself beyond a child’s cognitive abilities and comprehension.
Moreover, Christianity must be able to address the question of motive—particularly God’s motive for Creation and the motive for Jesus’ creation of Heaven—because motive lies at the crux of all the positively-inspired “why” questions that children pose. Children are likely far more interested in the reasons that inspired God to create rather than the “how” or “what” of God’s Creation.
Unfortunately, Christianity tends to balk at questions concerning God’s motive for Creation. The framework of conventional/traditional Christian assumptions renders nonsensical all “why” questions about God’s motives. It cannot provide a simple and easy answer to a child’s question of why God made Creation because it does not recognize the question as valid.
Sidestepping such “why” questions may have been acceptable in the past when men were in different modes of consciousness; however, invalidating the question as nonsensical because it contradicts dominant Christian assumptions is no longer justifiable.
Rather than dismiss such “why” questions outright, perhaps Christianity should step back and reassess its core assumptions—in particular, assumptions that automatically negate the perfectly justifiable lines of inquiry concerning motive that are embedded in a child’s “why” questions.
No comments have been added yet.
