> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://matthew-d-burkholder.ghost.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Problems with Apologetics (Part 2): Family Matters - URL: https://matthew-d-burkholder.ghost.io/problems-with-apologetics-part-2-family-matters/ - Published: 2022-03-04T16:44:10.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-28T19:42:36.000Z - Author: Matthew D. Burkholder - Tags: Theology, apologetics, #Migrated-1787946130805, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2026-08-28 15:42 We've all heard the argument: "You are only a Christian because your parents are Christians," or "You only believe this because of where you were born." A trained apologist will often retort summoning the "[genetic fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic%5Ffallacy?ref=matthew-d-burkholder.ghost.io)" defence spell and deflect the criticism quickly. Some will remind the skeptic that Christianity was originally an eastern religion or speak about people who have left the faith of their ancestors. One can even make a case that a parent's religion can make it *harder* to believe. In a culture where particular religious identities are increasingly becoming less popular, some find the tradition of their parents embarrassing. (It's like when I went back to visit my childhood school a couple of years after moving away. I didn't get the memo that their school had suddenly outgrown Power Rangers. My new friends still loved Power Rangers... I didn't know. I was quite embarrassed when I asked if they were excited about the White Power Ranger storyline. They were not. They laughed. Geez, can't a kid just like Power Rangers? I really liked the Green Ranger, I thought him becoming the White Ranger was awesome. I even had the toys. Those toys were awesome. A present from my awesome parents. Where are the apologists for Power Rangers?!?) My apologies... But my point is, sometimes religion becomes like Power Rangers. Awesome at one point but mocked shortly after. Yes, *how* a person comes to a belief does not logically negate the truth claim of that belief. Yes, people have different origins for those beliefs. People change or abandon those beliefs. In short, truth doesn't necessarily care about these things. But these responses fail to really sit with the discomfort this question is getting at. The likelihood of having the same religion as my parents, who had the same religion as their parents, who often had the same religion as their surrounding culture, is relatively high. And the likelihood of *leaving* thatreligion for another religion is very low. Religious beliefs generally fall along cultural lines. If you grew up reading a Christian Bible your parents gave you, you likely would believe in Jesus. If you grew up reading a Qu'ran your parents gave you, you likely would follow the teachings of Muhammed. We know this intuitively. The problem is that religious claims are also claims about God and ultimate reality. These are not just claims about truth but an agent who reveals that truth. And in the theological sense, if these claims are exclusive they are hardly arbitrary if they are localized. If the saving revelation is given to some, it follows that saving revelation is also being denied to others. The objection isn't just about the origin of beliefs, it is about why those beliefs seem curiously dependent on their cultural and historical context and what this might possibly say about God. Some Christian traditions treat the human person as almost disposable, having a remarkable callousness to what we are really saying when we say God exclusively reveals to, and saves people from, only one religion. *We are saying salvation is highly more probable based on geographic location.* If we are glazing over this fact it demonstrates we are not thinking empathetically. We might be avoiding this horrific implication because it might upset our understanding of who God is according to our tradition. Or it might give us an out of appreciating and respecting people from different religious backgrounds. It might help us avoid an extremely uncomfortable truth: *Every claim about a revelation in one religion can equally be claimed in any religion.* We all have our books. We all have our prophets. We all have our religious experiences. They may not be equal in the validity of their truth, but if we strictly evaluate religious truth on the *claim* of revelation, neither side appears to have an advantage over the other. What is left is not theology but anthropology. This series is about steel-manning the other side of the debate. We can no longer rush past the questions raised by skeptics of faith. We need to recognize that these questions are asked with sincerity and represent difficult challenges to the Christian faith. So why do I still believe? If I have to be honest, some days my belief seems like it is teetering on the halfway point between full and empty. But I continue to make the claim that Jesus is the perfect image of God and the perfect version of humanity. Why? Is it because I have an answer to all of the challenges raised by skeptics? Is that what my faith is? An idea in my head? No, faith is more than an idea. It is a state of trust. It embraces the hope that wherever God is he never ceases to be the saving God. It is acknowledging that God is *bigger* than the social and cultural traditions that so often obscure rather than reveal the God who enters the condition of those on the furthest margins of society. If God exists as I believe he exists on the cross, he must be this God at all times for all people everywhere. For the ones to whom the Son chooses to reveal God are those "weary and carrying heavy burdens," the ones to whom the Son gives rest (Matt 11:28). Is this a perfect answer? No. But it is the message I believe and hope in nonetheless. It is beautiful precisely because it transcends geography and history. And that's OK.