Amy-Jill Levine, a Jew, recounts a formative childhood experience: at age seven, a Catholic classmate told her, “You killed our Lord. My priest said so.” Levine went home in tears, crying, “I killed God!” Her mother reassured her that God was “doing just fine,” but the incident left a permanent mark.
This story is often told biographically. I suggest reading it instead as a theological stress test:
What Christian theology, if taught responsibly and age-appropriately, would have made that accusation impossible—not merely unkind, but unintelligible?
The key phrase here is age-appropriately. A doctrine that may require nuance even for adults can become actively harmful when translated—without care—into a child’s moral universe.
1. Atonement theology that cannot be reduced to blame language
If the cross is taught to children in terms of who killed Jesus, rather than why Jesus died, the result is almost guaranteed distortion. Atonement language that is not carefully framed for children will default to moral blame, and moral blame looks for culprits. Properly taught, the cross is about sin and redemption—not ethnic or collective guilt. If a doctrine cannot be rendered without scapegoating when simplified, something is already wrong.
2. A doctrine of sin that is universal and teachable to children
Christian theology insists that sin is universal. But children reason concretely, not abstractly. If “everyone sins” is taught alongside stories naming specific groups as Jesus’ opponents, children will naturally infer that those people are the sinners. Age-appropriate theology must actively block this inference by teaching that sin is a shared human condition, not a group trait.
3. Teaching Jesus’ Jewishness as a first-order fact
Children should learn early that Jesus, his family, and his first followers were Jewish—and that this matters. If Judaism is implicitly presented as the “bad before” and Christianity as the “good after,” the charge Levine heard is not an aberration; it is the logical outcome. This is not advanced interfaith theory. It is basic theological hygiene.
4. Scripture taught as contextual witness, not courtroom evidence
Children are especially vulnerable to absolutized claims. Teaching the Gospels without context—especially polemical passages—invites them to read Scripture as accusation rather than proclamation. Historical context is not an adult luxury; it is a child-protection measure.
5. Ecclesial authority taught with accountability
The phrase “my priest said so” did the damage. A healthy ecclesiology teaches children that religious authority is real—but not infallible, and always accountable to love of neighbor. If children are taught that authority overrides conscience and compassion, theology becomes a weapon.
Levine’s story raises a sharp question for churches:
Is our theology robust enough to survive being taught to children without producing fear, scapegoating, or false guilt?
Questions
- Which Christian doctrines most urgently require age-appropriate framing—and why?
- Is antisemitic catechesis mainly a failure of interpretation, or a failure to consider how theology lands on children?
- Should “the child in the room” function as a theological test, not just a pastoral concern?