Is Stephen Hawking in Hell?

Stephen Hawking

In a public response to the announcement of Stephen Hawking’s death, the Archbishop of York, the second highest position of the Church of England, offered these words of condolences:

“Very honoured he came to my graduation at Cambridge. Sojourner Truth go well and may the Angels of God welcome you! Love and Prayers to your daughters.”

Did the Archbishop just violate Christian doctrine? Is Stephen Hawking in hell or has he been welcomed by the angels of God?

Stephen Hawking was an outspoken atheist; he did not believe in God. In an El Mundo interview in 2014, Hawking stated,

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”[i]

But that didn’t stop him from also invoking God, “God is the name people give to the reason we are here…that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.”[ii]

In fairness, Hawking infused an incredible amount of thought into his worldview. But even though Hawking was a careful thinker[iii], his decision about God still has an air of personal bias:

There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either…for that, I am extremely grateful.

This leads us to the heart of the issue.

Let me be very clear, not everyone goes to Heaven. Jesus says in John 14:6, I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Let me also say that all can be saved. Paul discusses this in Rom 10; a critical passage to understand when thinking about whether Stephen Hawking, or any atheist for that matter, is in hell when they die.

In Romans 10, Paul reminds us to not ask who is in Heaven or hell when they die because to do so is to bring Christ into our shoes. In other words, when Jesus told us not to judge in Matthew 7, he did so in a way that called us, Christians, to look at ourselves first. And when we look at ourselves, we see sinners saved by grace—undeserved grace. In the parable of the unforgiving debtor[iv], the first man was forgiven far more than the second and, for that, the first was condemned. The same is true with Stephen Hawking.

Here is a man with a legitimate emotional hang-up: how could God allow such a disease as his? But he still devoted his life to seeking truth. Now I’m not saying he was forgiven, that’s between him and God, but I am saying that his heart was pure in focus. He was a kind, loving man, with a heart for truth.

Truth, which happens to be the exact thing Christians call Jesus: the way, the truth and the life (John 14).

Is Stephen Hawking in hell? Honestly, I don’t know, and neither do you; nor should we. But we can use his life as an example. Hawking fought through adversity. He continued learning for 51 years longer than doctors thought he’d live. He’s the epitome of courage.

Did he get the wrong answer—yes. Did he lead others astray—yes, again. But so did Paul, so did James. So has this author, and I’m willing to bet—so have you. Fortunately, it’s not our answers that save us, it’s the perfect intercessor between God and Man who saves us. So, let us rejoice that we have a High Priest who is able to empathize with our weaknesses[v]. Only God knows the fate of Stephen Hawking. I do hope to meet him one day—though not in hell.

Stay strong, Christians, we have been forgiven far more than we give ourselves credit for. I love you, and I love Stephen Hawking—wherever he is.



[iii] In an interview with Discovery Channel, Hawking stated, “We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God”

[iv] Matthew 18:21-35

[v] Heb 4:14-16


6 Signs of Historical Reliability in the Resurrection Accounts

In addition to showing that the Gospels are historically reliable as a whole, New Testament scholars also use six “Indications of Authenticity” to determine the historicity of specific sayings or events in Jesus’ life.

Using William Lane Craig’s definitions of these six criteria, let’s apply them to the biggest event surrounding the person of Jesus: his resurrection.

(1) “Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.”

If details of an event line up with what we know about the culture at that time, then that event is more likely to be historical. The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial align perfectly with the burial practices in the first century, such as his body being wrapped in linen and his body being prepared with various oils and spices.

(2) “Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source.”

The more early, independent sources you have for an event the more likely it is to be historical. If you agree with the scholarly majority today, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke. So Mark and John are independent sources. Content found in Matthew’s account (M) or Luke’s account (L) but not in Mark’s account is considered to be from a separate source (obviously if you don’t think the Gospels copied from one another then they are all separate sources). Finally, Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is also independent. All five sources were written in the first century. At worst we have three independent sources (Mark, John, and Paul) and at best we have five (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul).

(3) “Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.”

Accounts that include embarrassing details are more likely to be historical since they are less likely to be made up. One of the more obvious examples is that no one actually witnessed the resurrection take place; people only witnessed Jesus alive afterwards. Also, not all of the disciples first believed in the resurrection (Matthew 28:17).

(4) “Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.”

If a saying or event is completely different from Jewish beliefs during Jesus’ life or Christian beliefs after Jesus’ life, then it’s less likely to be copied from other beliefs. Jesus’ resurrection itself was something that was radically dissimilar to the beliefs of Judaism. The Jewish people believed that the resurrection included all people at the end of time (Isaiah 26:9; Ezekiel 37; Daniel 12:2). This perhaps explains why the disciples were so lost when Jesus predicted his individual resurrection (Mark 8:32).

(5) “Semitisms: traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms.”

Traces of Aramaic point towards historicity since they go back to the original words that Jesus spoke. Interestingly enough, there is one semitism in John’s resurrection account where Mary calls Jesus “Rabboni,” which is “Teacher” in Aramaic (John 20:16).

(6) “Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.”

If a saying or event coheres with facts that we know about Jesus, then it’s more likely to be historical. Details like Joseph of Arimathea asking Pilate for the body and Roman soldiers guarding the tomb coheres with the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion. Other small details include that Jesus came from Nazareth (Mark 16:6) and was a rabbi (John 20:16).

Sharing the Evidence

In summary, all six indications of authenticity are abundantly present in the resurrection accounts, thus pointing to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. So how do we share this information with others?

These criteria can be shared with those who don’t think that the Gospels are historically reliable in the slightest. When discussing them with a skeptic, there are two things you should mention. First, New Testament scholars use these criteria regardless of their religious background. Second, when using these criteria, you aren’t presupposing the inspiration or reliability of the Gospels. Instead, you are treating the Gospels like any other ancient document.

This kind of evidence can go a long way when discussing the Resurrection with others.

Podcast 82: The Culture’s View of Masculinity vs. The Biblical View


On this episode:

Nate talks about the value of time in evangelism and apologetics (:18)
Nate welcomes Gene and Logan (8:40)
Important plugs (9:19)
Game Time: Name That Classic Rock Anthem! (10:15)
The Culture’s View of Masculinity vs. The Biblical View (20:49)

Sign up for our unique newsletter that contains material only for subscribers at (! Also, if you get a chance, subscribe and rate us on iTunes! It’s quick and easy and helps us get our show out to more listeners.

Ep. 82: The Culture’s View of Masculinity vs. The Biblical View

To download this episode, right-click here.





*Bumper music by

3 Ways to Handle Information Overload


In the past month, my extra studying on origins science has faded into the background. My science professor actually asked me if things were going okay because she hadn’t gotten any questions from me in a while. I laughed and told her yes, I’m fine; I’ve just been busy with other things and needed to give my brain a break.

Being a critical thinker and a research-things-for-yourself student is exhausting. Essentially, it entails giving yourself an extra portion of homework. But beyond that, almost everything you’re learning in that extra research contradicts what you’re learning in class. That takes way more mental power to sort through.

Sometimes, apologetics and truth-seeking, combined with all the other aspects of life, gets overwhelming. You experience a case of information overload. So what can you do when this happens?

1. Take a step back.

It’s likely that you’re losing the view of the whole forest and getting stuck staring up at one giant sequoia tree. You’ve struck something huge, and it’s throwing off your game. You’re drowning in the swamp of too much information. You can’t see the big picture anymore, and you have no clue how all this fits together.

So take a step back.

Reevaluate your goal (What are you looking for? What are you trying to learn?) and analyze the steps you’re taking toward it. Are you keeping your search focused, or are you following a link trail all over the place? Are you giving clear and concise arguments, or ones that are totally scattered and random? Regain a perspective of the whole.

2. Take a break.

Remember, you’re in this for the long haul. Apologetics and truth-seeking is a lifelong pursuit. Pace yourself for the marathon rather than blowing all your energy on a sprint.

It’s okay to take a break. Yes, what you’re doing is important, but studying and argument-making can’t and shouldn’t take over your life.

Read a book just for fun. Watch an episode of that TV show your family member or friend has been begging you to watch with them. Better yet, spend some time outdoors, away from the books and the screens altogether!

3. Accept that this will never go just how you want it.

The reality is, truth-seeking and truth-sharing aren’t as neat and tidy as we hope they will be. They don’t always cooperate with deadlines or appointments, and they rarely go as planned. Inevitably, you will run into a new challenge you hadn’t seen coming, or the person you’re talking to will respond completely unexpectedly. Be flexible, and enjoy the ride.

So, when you experience information overload and you’re overwhelmed…

Remember, authentic apologetics is integrated into your life. But it’s also a deliberate pursuit of learning and growth–towards establishing what you believe and effectively communicating that to others. It takes effort and time–a lot of both!

Sometimes the best thing for your health and growth is to take a step back, take a break, accept God’s sovereignty in this area, and just let things simmer for a while.

Take Action: Give yourself a check-up.

Right now, take a moment to evaluate yourself. Are you feeling burnt out? Feeling lost and overwhelmed? Feeling like you’re taking one step forward, then falling two steps back?

Be honest with yourself and decide whether it’s time to put things on pause for a bit, so you can later return with fresh energy and perspective.

Podcast 81: How Can Christians Effectively Navigate the National Conversation on Gun Control?


Welcome to our first episode of 2018! On this episode:

Nate talks about First Date Evangelism (:18)
Nate welcomes Gene and Logan (8:33)
Important announcement about Facebook Live Event (10:13)
Worldview Analysis (Gene): Best Picture (11:42)
How Can Christians Effectively Navigate the National Conversation on Gun Control? (23:32)

Sign up for our unique newsletter that contains material only for subscriber (at! Also, if you get a chance, subscribe and rate us on iTunes! It’s quick and easy and helps us get our show out to more listeners.

Ep 81: How Can Christians Effectively Navigate the National Conversation on Gun Control?

To download the episode, right-click here.





*Bumper music by

Another Archaeological Find Shows That The Bible Really Is History


Last year I wrote an article about how archaeological discoveries continue to support the Bible. In it, I quoted George Rawlinson and Albert Nicols Arnold’s book, “The Historical Evidences Of The Truth Of The Scripture Records” with the following:

“…even at this remote distance of time from the date of the Sacred Oracles, new evidences of their credibility and accuracy are continually coming to light. How much may yet remain, buried under barren mounds, or entombed in pyramids and catacombs, or hidden in the yet unexplored pages of some ancient literature…”

I didn’t know then how appropriate it would be to share that quote. In my article, I mentioned the 2015 discovery of the seal of King Hezekiah. As it turns out, near where King Hezekiah’s seal was found, another incredible archaeological find was revealed to the world at large: the seal of the Prophet Isaiah.

In February of this year, the Times of Israel reported that archaeologists most likely found the seal of the Prophet Isaiah. I say “most likely” because the seal is damaged and as such, missing a crucial letter, “aleph.” That letter would make the second word on the seal “prophet.” Because of that fact, there is no way to be 100% sure that is is the seal of the Prophet Isaiah. Plus, there is a debate on whether the title “prophet” would have been used at all.

That said, it still seems highly likely that it is the seal of the prophet Isaiah. Dr. Eliat Mazar pointed out the archaeological context in which the seal was found. As the article from the Times of Israel stated:

“It was found only 10 feet away from where in 2015 Mazar’s team discovered an important, intact bulla with the inscription ‘of King Hezekiah of Judah.’ The 12th king of the Kingdom of Judah, King Hezekiah ruled from circa 727 BCE-698 BCE…”

Taking both evidence for and against the seal belonging to Isaiah into account, the article quotes Dr. Robert Cargill of Biblical Archaeology Review:

“Cargill, a religious studies assistant professor at the University of Iowa, said he respected Mazar’s ‘careful, responsible treatment’ of the bulla in the BAR article. ‘She didn’t rush to conclusively say she had found the seal of Isaiah… In our article she gives the possible alternatives,’ said Cargill, who called himself ‘a natural skeptic.'” Cargill goes on saying,

“…’But if you’re asking me, I think she’s got it. You’re looking at the first archaeological reference of the prophet Isaiah outside of the Bible,’ said Cargill. ‘It’s amazing.'”

What Does This Mean?

Part of the reason why I love history and archaeology is that things are always being found that fill in gaps of what we didn’t know before. Or, we find things that turn what we thought we knew completely on its head. The latter is evidenced recently by the discovery of ancient footprints challenging the theory of human evolution and the discovery of a second Viking settlement which is said to rewrite the history of the Vikings in North America.

As I stated in my last article we simply don’t know what’s out there waiting to be discovered. To be fair, it’s entirely possible that an ancient tablet could be uncovered proving that the Bible was the most elaborate ruse played upon all humanity. However, considering the trajectory of findings thus far, it seems highly unlikely.

As it stands, the best inference from the evidence would suggest that the Bible is a reliable historical document that Christians can trust.

The video below summarizes the amazing archaeological find:

3 Reasons You’re Vital to the World of Ideas

Guest post by Mia Langford

It may be true, that men, who are mere mathematicians, have certain specific shortcomings, but that is not the fault of mathematics, for it is equally true of every other exclusive occupation. — Carl Friedrich Gauss

“So much of this is just so far above my head. I don’t think there would ever be much I could contribute.”

My heart sank. This beautiful, earnest elementary school teacher really thought she had nothing to give to the defense of truth. But apologetics is for everyone. As Christians we believe we have access to general and revealed truth, and this truth is accessible to all. Explain the world accurately; that’s the goal. To explain the world as accurately as possible, and to reach that same world as persuasively as possible, we need the entire world, with the varying perspectives, data set, experiences, and gifts it brings to the table.

Why? Let’s look at three reasons.

1.) Sometimes the emperor has no clothes.

We all know the story of the emperor’s new clothes by Hans Christian Anderson. The emperor was tricked by a tailor into wearing invisible clothes that ostensibly had the power to reveal the stupidity of any person who was not able to see them, for:

“The whole town knew about the cloth’s peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbors were.”

It took the candid chutzpah of a little child to shatter the ridiculous, widespread delusion that gripped an entire population.

Deep divers who spend decades of life dedicated to mastery of a particular subject or craft are invaluable, and deserve the admiration and appreciation of a world benefitting immensely from their dedication. But much like this kingdom, disciplines of any nature – including apologetics and its proximate fields — become insular and prone to wayward theories if they do not receive periodic infusions of data, perspective, and evaluation from other disciplines, as well as laymen.

Let’s take an example from the world of art: the famous painting by Leonardo DaVinci — the Mona Lisa.

Throughout the centuries, a good number of art critics and art historians made it their expert opinion that Lisa del Giocondo — the model for DaVinci’s masterpiece — was only half-smiling. Some even went so far as to call her sad, or even frowning.

Based on nothing more than a ledger from a Florentine convent that recorded del Giocondo purchasing snail water, one theory advances the Mona Lisa’s only “half-smile” at that exact moment is because “she can’t stop thinking about disease, her impending death, and how scary sex is.” The originator of this theory further makes the rather unsubstantiated assertion that there is “something macabre and morbid in Leonardo’s masterpiece” and “if the Mona Lisa is a portrait of someone with a sexually transmitted disease, these hints of death and illness suddenly make sense.”

Let’s keep in mind — experts engaged in speculations and tenuous arguments such as these in order to explain why the Mona Lisa was not fully smiling at that exact moment – a biased assumption.

Yet a recent study reveals non-expert participants found del Giocondo’s expression unequivocally “happy” 97 percent of the time. This astonished researchers, with some going so far as to say given the descriptions from art and art history more ambiguity was expected, calling the common opinion among art historians into question.

Or let’s take an example from the medical field.

Decades ago, many doctors and researchers made the unsubstantiated assumption that dietary fat must be bad for weight gain, and the low-fat diet was born. Millions of tax dollars poured into government-sponsored programs seeking to fight the trend of obesity, all operating on this unproven assumption. Meanwhile, companies made billions on “healthy” products containing empty, processed carbohydrates proudly marked “fat-free.” Patients complied, but in general, also complained the diet wasn’t working.

Despite the horrific failure of these government initiatives and fifty years of trying to prove through research that dietary fat causes obesity we still cannot find any evidence in support of this assumption. In fact, research has supported the conclusion that dietary fat may in fact protect against obesity. Yet it took the medical community decades before they were willing to lay this pet idea aside. One misguided and unchallenged assumption led to decades of flawed research and understanding, leading one researcher to call the historic emphasis on total fat reduction a serious distraction in efforts to control obesity and improve health in general.[i]

Ideas and their accompanying practices have consequences. We can avert expensive dead-ends and stagnation by encouraging a discipline’s ideas to interact with the greater world.

2.) It’s the gateway to innovation and discovery.

Like the young Max Planck, young Albert Einstein was told everything worth discovering in physics had already been discovered. This did not stop the restless Einstein from craving originality and the prospect of intellectual adventure. At the dawn of the last century, Einstein found himself working in a patent office. If ever there was a gross misappropriation of gifting, this was surely it. His non-conformist streak and rebellious disposition had not set well in an academic environment. Yet, perhaps this non-academic setting made room for novel angles of reflection, as well as the time and privacy needed to explore them. Einstein got his adventure. While working at the patent office, he published ideas that turned the pet ideas in physics upside down.

Once a certain threshold is reached, advances in specialized fields often become dependent on new information from other contexts and the cross-pollination of ideas. This is because experts are disproportionately familiar with, as well as focused on, the developed knowledge within the prescribed boundaries of their own field of study. New knowledge, then, must often come from the outside. An outsider is also likely to ask questions and tease at new investigative angles that might not occur to an insider.

There is a long precedent for this phenomenon throughout history, with many of our most important discoveries or advances being the result of interjection from practitioners in other disciplines. The Wright brothers — inventors of the airplane — were not engineers; they were mechanics. Marie Curie — pioneering researcher on radioactivity — was a physicist, yet many of her important contributions are to medicine. The list goes on.

These interjections are often viewed as impertinence, but new data merely serves to uncover new possibilities to the brilliant, dauntless mind ready to receive and interact with it. Scholars are students of history, and are likely familiar with this precedent even if they haven’t pondered implications for methodology. The advantages shoot through methodology and continue into dissemination. The merging of aspects from two or more disciplines creates a competitive advantage, allowing one to move between the two worlds, and connect the “tribes.”

3.) It’s biblical.

 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.  If all were a single member, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.

 – I Corinthians 12:17-22 ESV

Yeah. What Paul said.

Perhaps that beautiful schoolteacher has knowledge on how to reach children more effectively with apologetic ideas. Perhaps after reading the work of an apologist she answers the pivotal question of a student who goes on to influence thousands of people. Perhaps that obscure bible verse she has treasured in her heart finds sudden salience in the discussion at hand. Perhaps she can even smell if a tenuous academic theory has become disconnected from reality, its discord with her experiences on the ground of life gnawing at the edges of her mind. Regardless, there is something she brings to the table.

And so do you, for:

Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed. – Proverbs 15:22 ESV

[i] Fung, Dr. Jason. The Obesity Code. (Greystone Books: Vancouver/Berkley.) 2016.

Mia holds degrees in psychology, biblical studies, and advanced generalist social work, with experience in research, strategy, public speaking, program design, fundraising, and a bunch of other things you don’t really want to know about. She’s convinced this plus her penchant for tangents and shiny things is enough to qualify her for the title Renaissance Woman. She directs the Deeper Roots Conference, manages the Library of Historical Apologetics, is a researcher with the Spiritual Readiness Project, regularly contributes to, and has written for The Stream. She loves pretty much anything nerdy, adventurous, or caffeinated. Follow her on Facebook, or on Twitter @MiaMLangford or Instagram langford_mia where her odysseys are just beginning.

3 Reasons to Give up Apologetics

I was researching opinions on the difference between apologetics and evangelism when I came across a website that explained it like this:

Apologetics usually requires some level of intellectual sophistication.[i]

While I certainly believe intelligence and Christianity are complimentary,[ii] the idea that apologetics is for the intellectual is problematic when looking at 1 Pet 3:15: “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you”. If apologetics is something all Christians should be prepared for then maybe ‘apologetics’ isn’t the only way.

Apologetics is Complicated

The first time I approached a church about teaching apologetics, I received an all too common response from the pastor: “We teach the Bible, we don’t need that.” As I listened to his sermon, I couldn’t help but see the irony in his appeals to missionary work. He said, “They will know you by your fruits”, a clear message from Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount. So the pastor wanted his congregation to go out and win hearts and minds for Christ… without providing any reasons!? Apologetics is clearly a piece of the endeavor but putting the term ‘apologetics’ on the mission appears to complicate the ask.

Most of us are already prepared to give a reason by simply sharing our testimony. Labeling it ‘apologetics’ only complicates evangelism.

Apologetics Is Confusing

As a new follower of Jesus, I was all-in. I switched majors in college and jumped into Theology classes. My first apologetics class was an elective. Back then I had never heard the term before (and neither had anyone within my circle of influence). As I shared my progress with friends and family, they would always ask me: What is apologetics; is that like saying you’re sorry you’re a Christian? At the time, I responded, “I think it comes from the root word we use for ‘apostle.’ It’s not apologizing but training or teaching.” Boy was I wrong. Apologetics *is* apologizing. Apologizing, it turns out, was the word I got wrong.

Apologetics plays on a term that has taken on a different meaning in culture and is confusing to those not in apologist circles.

Apologetics Is Not Gentle

The second half of 1 Peter 3:15 says that defending Christianity should be done with gentleness and respect. If apologetics is so gentle and respectful, why is it so confrontational? Why does #apologetics on Twitter attract #atheist responses? Could it be that we (apologists) have turned Christianity into an US VS THEM culture? I think this approach is anti-Jesus. In the Gospels, the only time we see Jesus being overtly aggressive is with the religious leaders who are supposed to know Him.

The writer of Hebrews says it like this:

 Therefore, let us leave the elementary teaching about Christ and go on to maturity (Heb 6:1)

Jesus called us to evangelism, to share the Gospel through personal experience and love. By definition, that process will always include apologetics. Changing our approach doesn’t change the equipment available. But, I think there is a better way. I think we’d be better off if we were Christians first—Christians who focused on the person behind the argument, rather than the argument itself.


It may be time to stop ‘doing’ apologetics and start ‘being’ apologists.

Check out more on this type of apologetics here and here. What do you think? Leave some thoughts below, I’d love to hear from you.


[ii] For an excellent list of Nobel Prize winners and quotes about God, check out:

3 Tips to More Effective Conversations for Christ


For a period of time in 2010 I chatted with my best friend about his faith. I had not yet developed the First Date Evangelism approach but I was asking him good questions about why he held his views. Unfortunately, I was not prepared for my friend’s responses. He would often interrupt me, change the subject, and condescend. Sometimes he’d even overwhelm me with six different responses all at once. I remember walking away from those conversations feeling very frustrated!

Whenever you engage your friends and neighbors for Christ there’s always a potential for things like this that can quickly derail a productive chat. But you don’t have to be frustrated like I was! Here are some effective tips to avoid barriers and have more effective conversations for Christ.

Tip #1: Always be fair, polite, and gracious

Through your tone, mannerisms, and speech you should eagerly seek common ground with people. Always treat them with great care and concern. Always patiently listen to what they have to say. Never interrupt them.

If you are not fair, polite, and gracious to folks, you’ll ruin their developing trust in you and they’ll likely become defensive or shut down. This is why I always start my questions like this: “Do you mind if I ask…?” Or, “Is it okay if we talk about…?” In this manner I’m asking their permission, which puts me in a submissive stance that further develops trust (and lowers walls of defenses in the other person).

Tip #2: Don’t let people change the subject

Some people will answer your question by bringing up an unrelated issue. In essence, they’ve changed the subject and are talking about something else. There are typically two reasons for this: 1) they don’t know what they’re doing; 2) they do know and they’re doing it on purpose. Either way this is unhelpful. When someone starts talking about something else, politely remind them that they haven’t answered your original question. Then wait for them to get back on track.

You also may ask a question but get multiple, unrelated answers. If this happens to you, you may think you need to answer every single response. You don’t! Choose one thing your friend has offered and focus only on that one thing until you are satisfied that your friend has the proper perspective. Then, and only then, can you move on to another topic.

Tip #3: For some questions, “yes” or “no” is a huge mistake

Sometimes people ask misleading questions like: You’re saying if I don’t believe in Jesus, I’m going to hell? or You’re saying God’s going to punish me for being gay? People who ask these kinds of questions smuggle incorrect assumptions into the conversation. Those who ask the first question often think that what sends people to hell is not believing in Jesus, when in actuality sin sends people to hell. Those who ask the second question often think that God punishes people for who they are, when in actuality people go to hell for what they choose to do. To simply say, “Yes,” to these kinds of questions does not correct the flawed assumptions buried underneath.

In these moments I ask clarification questions like, “What do you mean by that?” in order to flush out the error in their thinking. If you ask for clarification first you’ll be able to identify the flawed assumption. Once the assumption is identified and corrected, then and only then can you answer the question.

Stay tuned next week for 3 additional tips to more effective conversations for Christ!

Where Is A Clear Lens Ministry Going in 2018?


Next week A Clear Lens will hit it’s five year anniversary, if you can believe that! And it’s been quite a journey. I remember starting this journey by myself as an apologetics ministry. God has allowed me to turn this into a team of committed Christ followers who are actively writing and podcasting about why Christianity is true.

As a ministry we have a vision for 2018 and beyond. We’re going somewhere, friends! We’re going to provide materials that we believe are of extreme importance in today’s culture.

Join me on Wednesday, March 7th at 6 p.m. PST/9 p.m. EST and I’ll tell you where we’re going. I’ll even give you a taste of things to come! So don’t miss out. Wednesday, March 7th at 6 p.m. PST/9 p.m. EST and I’ll see you then.

Like us on Facebook to catch this live event on our FB Page!

Stay Connected



6 Signs of Historical Reliability in the Resurrection Accounts

Using 6 indications of authenticity from New Testament scholars to examine the historicity of the Resurrection accounts.