Will Our Pets (and other animals) Greet Us in Heaven?

In my last blog article, I said I would begin a new series that will explore the possibility of deceased pets and wild animals inhabiting the new heaven and earth, as its described in both the Old and New Testaments. I believe this is a question millions of people—both Christians and non-Christians—would like to have answered. Unfortunately, there are very few resources available on this topic, and the few I’m familiar with are more emotional-based than Bible-based.  And of course the Bible is not explicit on the eternal fate of non-human life. But after studying this issue in depth, I think I can make a fairly good case that at least sentient animals (those that can feel and perceive things) will be redeemed alongside God’s children at the end of this age.

By way of introduction, I’ll briefly share how I came to be interested in this topic. The first time I remember wondering about the eternal fate of non-human life was on my 20^th wedding anniversary. My wife and I were in Moab, Utah, exploring Arches National Park. When we called home that evening to check on our kids, who were in high school at the time, they told us our golden retriever, Bear, had died.  We were grief stricken, and felt terrible that we were not home to comfort him (and our kids) as he was dying. We also felt bad that our fifteen year old son was left with the sad chore of burying his dog “brother.” In our motel room that night, I tearfully wrote a “eulogy” for Bear to preserve my memory of his life. I wondered at the time if he would be there to greet my wife and I in heaven, someday.          

Then, a little less than three years ago, my dog Sam—one of my best friends and companion for over fifteen years—also died. Fortunately, I was home this time and was able to gently pet and comfort him as he drifted away. Sam’s death refocused my interest on the eternal destiny of non-human life even further, and I decided to research and write a book on the subject. The book itself is not completed (I’ll let you know when I find a publisher), but the material I will be using for this series of blog articles is going to be based on it.

C. S. Lewis believed that pets would be in heaven (I’ll explain his reasoning later on), but questioned whether or not wild animals would be. Readers who know me personally (or read my book Should Christians Be Environmentalists) know how much I love wildlife. In fact I’ve written a book and several dozen articles on wildlife, so it was natural for me to wonder if they too might inhabit heaven after physical death.  If Lewis is right about pets, why not wild animals?

In order to develop this topic, we’ll explore thing such as:  What is God’s perspective on non-human life—do they have value to Him independent of humans? What do animals think, feel, and experience? You’ll be surprised what recent studies in animal behavior have revealed! Do sentient animals, like humans, have immaterial minds distinct from their physical brains? What is there about sentient animals that would lead us to conclude they do have immaterial mind (and thus souls)? Are animal souls immortal? If so, will they be resurrected? You may be surprised to discover that well-known theologians think they probably will. I’ll share some of their thoughts down the road.

I know this is a controversial topic, so I will go through it carefully and methodologically, laying a solid foundation for my conclusions. Although the Bible doesn’t give us all the information on this topic we would like, I will try to justify my conclusions in Scripture. And let me assure you, nothing I will write on this subject will be contrary to what is possible within biblical boundaries—even when  a degree of speculation is required.

You can see this will be an intriguing series of articles. And from an evangelistic perspective, I think it has tremendous potential as a point of contact because many unbelievers have the same concerns about their deceased pets as Christians. Since this is material for a new book, I'd appreciate any feedback you can give me.

 If you know anyone who would be interested in this topic, give them my blog address. If they (or you) would like to get on my blog email list (people I notify by email whenever I post a new blog article), send me an email through my website (www.danstory.net), and I’ll add you to my list. (I post notices on Facebook, but they’re easy to miss because of the huge volume of posts that pass through every day.) As in the past, I try to post an article every two weeks.

Four Approaches to Evangelism*

Part Three of Part Five:   Applying the Socratic Method

This blog article ends my twelve-part series on apologetics and evangelism. Beginning in (probably) two weeks, I’ll embark on what will be a major shift in topics—and one that I believe millions of people would like answers to, but which there are few Bible-based resources to investigate: “Will deceased pets and wild animals be in Heaven?” I’ll introduce the topic in the next blog article, so let interested people know what’s coming up. For now, to the issue at hand.

In my last article, prior to Christmas and the holidays, I suggested that asking challenging questions requires non-Christians to justify their own religious or secular worldview. This is the Socratic method of apologetics. If you didn’t read that article, go back and read it before going further, or what follows won’t make as much sense.

It should be clear by now that the task of Christian apologetics is to identify and remove obstacles that prevent non-Christians from seriously considering Christianity. The strategy of the Socratic method, in achieving this goal,  is to ask questions that  encourage non-Christians to see for themselves that their own religious or secular worldviews are untenable, and, in light of this, to reconsider the veracity of the Christian worldview.

This apologetic approach can be particularly useful in today’s postmodern world, where many non-Christians claim (although few consistently live it out) that there are no absolute truths, especially in the area of ethics and religion.  Rather than trying to present objective facts and evidences for Christianity, which many staunch  postmodernists will off-the-cuff reject as irrelevant, we challenge them to explain their position on the issue at hand.

The idea behind this apologetic tactic is that when fair-minded people come to understand for themselves that their existing religious or secular worldviews cannot be substantiated, when they discover they are unable to muster legitimate reasons to believe it, they will be more willing to rethink the assumptions of their own worldview. This may lead to a willingness to consider traditional apologetic evidences for Christianity. Better yet, to a Gospel presentation.

What kind of questions should we ask? In my book Engaging the Closed Minded I give numerous examples, but here are several basic kinds of questions that will work in practically every apologetic encounter:

 “What do you mean by that?” (Make then clarify.) 

“How do you know that’s true?” (Is their view merely personal opinion, based on

            hearsay, or is it something they are parroting from popular culture?) 

 “Why should I believe that?” (Is there a good reason to believe as they do?)

 “Where did your learn that”? (What’s their source, is it reliable?)

“What happens if you’re wrong?” (Religious decisions based on feelings and

            experiences, rather than a foundation of objective facts (as in Christianity),

            are at best questionable, and likely false.

These are just a few examples, and I encourage you to read my book for many more examples and a much fuller treatment of this subject. But notice that all of these questions are essentially the same kinds of questions that non-Christians often ask us. By asking them the same questions we’re asked, we are taking the burden of proof off ourselves and placing it on the unbelievers—where it belongs. After all, we have the truth and they don’t, so why should we always be the ones justifying our beliefs!

We can also ask similar questions to help non-Christians think through their assumptions about Christianity. Non-Christians often harbor erroneous ideas about what the Bible teaches and misconceptions about what Christians actually believe. More often than not, they get their opinions from popular culture, which is notoriously biased against Christians and Christianity.   As we respond to their answers to the questions we ask, we can gently and lovingly share the truth about our faith. Unbelievers will begin to see that much of what they assume about Christianity is mistaken. This may give us an opportunity to share the Gospel as well as the transforming power of Christ. Postmodernists in particular, who often interpret reality according to their feelings and emotions, need to see that Christianity is not just about facts and history. It really can change their lives and meet their deepest emotional and spiritual needs—because it is true.

So give the Socratic Method a try. Simple questions that encourage unbelievers to think through their beliefs can be a powerful and effective apologetic tactic.

*  This series of blog articles are adapted from copyrighted material and may not be reproduced in book or article form, either electronically or in print, without permission. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, personal email list, Facebook friends and groups, or email it to people who may benefit from it. I explore the topic of this present series of articles  in my book Engaging the Closed Minded; Presenting Your Faith to the Confirmed Unbeliever (Kregel Publications).

Four Approaches to Evangelism *

Part Two of Part Five:   Apologetics on the Offense

When I taught apologetic classes in Bible College, I ask the students at the end of their final examine to tell me what they thought was the most important thing they learned in the class. Seventy-five to eighty percent said it was the Socratic Method (a method of argumentation used by the Greek philosopher). This is the topic of the last two blog articles in my twelve part series on the “Four Approaches to Evangelism.” 

When skeptics and other critics raise issues against Christianity or ask challenging questions, our normal response is to defend our faith by giving evidences to support the Christian position on the issue at hand. This is defensive apologetics. It’s a valuable and long-standing apologetic approach, one crucial for overcoming barriers that hinder an unbeliever from considering Christianity as a world and life view. 

The Socratic Method employs another strategy, which I call offensive apologetics. I believe it’s the best way—at least initially—to begin an apologetic response when critics make challenging statements or ask a skeptic’s question. Rather than responding by defending the Christian position, we first challenge the unbeliever to defend their position on the issue at hand. We challenge them to account for their religious or philosophical beliefs. This allows us to point out inconsistencies, assumptions, and inaccuracies (especially their assumptions and inaccuracies about the Bible and Christian beliefs in general) as well as their lack of verification for their position. More often than not, the beliefs and arguments raised by unbelievers are merely what they have heard in popular culture: television, books and magazines, professors in universities and colleges, and other pulpits of secular culture—which are notoriously inaccurate and biased. In most cases unbelievers are merely parroting what they’ve heard in popular culture. They seldom have well thought-out arguments.

I believe the Socratic Method is the most valuable and useful apologetic tactic Christian apologists can employ. If you understand it and apply it, I can virtually guarantee you will dramatically increase your effectiveness in apologetics.  The entire concept is summed up beautifully in Proverbs 18:17: “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (NIV). The arguments and assumptions skeptics and critics bring to religious discussions can sound truly convincing—until we pause a moment, think about what’s being said, and then question them. When this happens, their arguments fall apart almost every time.

  

You see, too often we find ourselves on the defensive. But it shouldn’t be that way. Why? Because we have the truth—and unbelievers harbor untruth. As Francis Schaeffer pointed out decades ago, we should move unbelievers in the direction their presuppositions will take them if carried to their logical conclusion: “No one can live logically according to his own non-Christian presuppositions. . . . If he were consistent to his non-Christian presuppositions he would be separated from the real universe (The God Who Is There). In other words, if pushed far enough every non-Christian worldview will eventually crumble into inconsistencies and incoherency. Only the Christian worldview is internally and externally coherent, free of inconsistences, and in harmony with reality as virtually every human being understands it and lives it out (I give the characteristics of a coherent worldview in my book, Christianity on the Offense).

Asking challenging questions also encourages non-Christians to be more willing to reconsider Christianity. Unbelievers are often confounded to find they are unable to substantiate their beliefs or their misconceptions about Christianity. They’ve never been forced to do so before. (The two most outrageous revolve around evolution and the alleged historical inaccuracy of the Bible.) When fair-minded people understand that their existing religious or secular worldviews cannot be substantiated, when they discover they are unable to muster supporting evidence to confirm them, they will be more willing to rethink their assumptions about Christianity—and their own worldview. Remember, we can give supporting evidences for our positions on whatever the issue is—assuming we’ve done our homework. We have truth on our side.

How does the Socratic Method work? I’ll explain it in the next blog article and give examples. Following that, I have a new series of blog articles beginning after the first of the year. It will probably be different from anything you’ve read from a Christian apologist! I’ll be interested to getting your responses. (This will be my last post until after the holidays. Have a blessed and Christ-centered Christmas.)

*  This and the other blog articles in this series are adapted from copyrighted material and may not be reproduced in book or article form, either electronically or in print, without permission. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, personal email list, Facebook friends and groups, or email it to people who may benefit from it. I explore the topic of this present series of articles more fully in my book Engaging the Closed Minded; Presenting Your Faith to the Confirmed Unbeliever (Kregel Publications).

Four Approaches to Evangelism *

Part Five: When and How Do We use Apologetics in Evangelism?

In witnessing opportunities, our goal is to share the Gospel, but often unbelievers are unwilling to seriously consider it. When this happens, they usually respond in one of three ways. They may brush us off and simply not want to discuss it; they have no interest in spiritual things. There is little we can do here except to keep these people in prayer and to continue to maintain a relationship, so they can observe us living a consistent Christian life. The time may come when God will stir up their lives and an opportunity to share the Gospel will arise. This was the topic of the first three articles in this series.  

The non-Christians’ second response to Gospel is to claim that they are “right” with God in the sense that He will welcome them into heaven because they are fairly decent people, at least when compared to “really bad” people. In other words, they think of salvation as the result of good behavior. These people usually fall into two categories: (1) they believe in God in a generic sense but have no particular affiliation with any religion, or (2) they identify with Christianity culturally, because Christianity has been the dominant religion in America, and most people have had some exposure to it. In either case, our response is to help them realize they are sinners who need a Savior—we apply “law.” This was the topic of the last several articles. In next few articles, I’ll explore the third approach to evangelism: how and when to apply apologetic tactics.

I ended the last article by pointing out that law can be a stepping-stone to the Gospel. Or it can trigger apologetic questions. Many unbelievers raise “intellectual” challenges to justify not accepting Jesus. In fact in today’s largely post-Christian secular world, many unbelievers will raise intellectual challenges even before we have the chance to share the Gospel. In light of this, I want to suggest that there are situations where we can legitimately apply apologetic tactics even if unbelievers don’t raise an intellectual issues themselves. A classic biblical example of this is found in Acts.

In Acts 17:16-34, Paul is in Athens. While waiting for Silas and Timothy to join him, he was invited to speak to the Greek philosophers before the Areopagus. Paul’s evangelistic strategy was to begin by applying apologetic tactics, which he did in a systematic fashion. First, he established common ground (point of contact) in order to get a fair hearing (v. 22-23). Second, having got their attention, Paul began to describe  God in general terms as the Creator who does not inhabit temples made with human hands (v. 24), who gives life to all people, and who is sovereign over all nations of the world (v. 25-26). Paul then points out that even some of their own philosophers understood this, and actually quoted one in verse 28 (as he also did in Titus 1:12). In other words, Paul used non-biblical evidence to confirm biblical truth (apologetics). It was not until after Paul had paved the way with apologetics that he finally shared the gospel in verses 30-31.

So yes, in some situations we can apply apologetics even if an unbeliever doesn’t raise an issue first.  In the above scenario, preaching Gospel or applying law without first applying apologetics would have been ineffective with the Greek philosophers. From the little they heard of Paul’s preaching in the market place (v. 17-18), they had already concluded he was an “idle babbler” who was proclaiming “strange deities” Moreover, they had no knowledge of Jesus Christ (v. 18), and as depraved pagans would probably not have responded to law. Paul rightly used apologetic tactics to lay the groundwork for a later presentation of the Gospel in verses 30-31.

Again, it is almost always best to let the unbeliever raise objections. But if the person you are engaging is obviously an atheist, someone immersed in a non-Christian religion, or a vocal skeptic of Christianity, taking the offensive may be a good evangelistic strategy. As it did with Paul, apologetics can help you get a fair hearing for the Gospel by establishing a point of contact from which productive dialogue can begin. (I explain this technique in detail in my book Engaging the Closed Minded.) But always keep in mind that apologetics is not an end in itself (i.e. winning the argument). Ultimately, apologetics is always a tool for evangelism.

There is another offensive apologetic tactic we can use in evangelism, and I believe it’s the best way—at least initially—to begin an apologetic response when critics raises a challenge or ask a skeptic’s question. It’s called the Socratic Method, and I’ll explain it in my next blog article.

*  This and the other blog articles in this series are adapted from copyrighted material and may not be reproduced in book or article form, either electronically or in print, without permission. But feel free to link this blog to your own website, personal email list, Facebook friends and groups, or email it to people who may benefit from it. I explore the topic of this present series of articles more fully in my book Engaging the Closed Minded; Presenting Your Faith to the Confirmed Unbeliever (Kregel Publications).