I realize you're not looking for a review of the article, however, I can't help but note a few items.
While the author highlights a problem within the general evangelical 'Christian' population that views faith and reason at odds and also correctly identifies secular humanism as a "religion... without (God)." there are some general historical errors of this piece, i.e. "Martin Luther and John Calvin approved the slaughter of Anabaptists..." and the reexamining of history though a specifically anti-religious lens, "A third of the population of Germany perished during a single 30-year doctrinal dispute between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists", suggesting that a single doctrinal dispute separated those groups and caused the chaos that was ultimately the result of the leadership of the countries involved and had little to do with issues faith.
That said, I think the author improperly views Christianity as a religion based on faith, as if faith was opposed to reason. It is evident they do so based on many Christian's view of their own faith as a subjectively embraced experience, rather than a reasoned understanding of the historical fact of Christ and His work. The author's example of President's Bush seemingly direct-from-God order to invade certain countries is evidence of this idea.
The question before us is not whether faith is legitimate or which faith is best. It is: Shall we allow the divine experience of one group to control the behavior of those with a different experience?
Let us work to see that the answer to that question remains an unequivocal, "No."
How far do we take this? We've reached the point in society where "murder" is defined as matter of faith, not reason, as is the case in abortion... I think Van Til was right, at least on this issue, its not "if god" but "which (G)od". A society whose morals (as if there can be "morals" in a system that accepts and promotes secular humanistic evolution as a fact) are subjective, based on the whims of the majority is only a short step away from anarchy.
It is important for us to strive to express our faith in reason-based, fact-based and history-based ways and to encourage other believers to think likewise. Christ is not some subjective personal thought, but rather a collectively embraced historical figure who really did what the Bible claims and thus our faith is based on real events that really accomplished what God declares in His Word declares they did.
Also, when Scientific "facts" seem to indicate something different than what the Church believes the Bible states, perhaps it is the interpretation of Scripture, rather than the Scriptures themselves that are at odds with the universe. For example, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun and other solar bodies orbited around it. They seemingly took this belief from Scripture, claiming that certain verses taught it ( http://radongas.blogspot.com
This revamping of tradition can only be taken so far, however, there are certain things clearly taught in Scripture that may not be apparent in the revealed universe. Theistic evolution, for example, is an attempt at revamping the first chapters of Genesis as to conform to a proposed scientific theory, diluting both concepts as to make them untenable. This leads to concepts such as "intelligent design", which is not Biblical creation. While I admit that the Bible shouldn't be used as a scientific text, it is usually our tradition, not Scripture which conflict with the "evidence" science discovers in the world around us. ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap
One final example of the type of problematic tradition that may be overturned by scientific discovery has to do with the potential for genetic pre-disposition toward homosexuality. For years evangelical Christians have argued and continue to argue that there is no, cannot be, will never be found a genetic marker or clue for a predespotisition for homosexuality, yet if (and when) such a genetic link is made it could only be denied by those Christians. I however view this staunch evangelical view as founded in tradition, not in Scripture which teaches that we're all "born in sin" and dead in Adam from conception... the fact that one may have a genetic disposition toward one sinful expression of that deadness or another should therefore not surprise us.
To reiterate then what I said previously, it is of the utmost importance that we who recognize the false-dichotomy between faith and reason seek to establish and express the true nature of faith as grounded in reason and the facts of Scripture and history and yet maintain faith as a supernatural gift of our Lord.
Micah: …and the reexamining of history though a specifically anti-religious lens, "A third of the population of Germany perished during a single 30-year doctrinal dispute between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists", suggesting that a single doctrinal dispute separated those groups and caused the chaos that was ultimately the result of the leadership of the countries involved and had little to do with issues faith.
ReplyDeleteKobra: I think the author would have done well to leave out the word “single” in the sentence you quoted, but it makes sense in that it was a single doctrinal issue that really sparked the Reformation and created the two groups that would eventually battle each other--Protestants and Catholics. So, while it isn’t likely that a single issue motivated all parties throughout the conflict, it was a single issue that created the parties involved in the conflict. I think that was the author’s intent by my reading.
Micah: “That said, I think the author improperly views Christianity as a religion based on faith, as if faith was opposed to reason.”
Kobra: Luther himself would agree with this. In a nutshell he would say that Reason is the enemy of Faith--this spawned the use of the term “mystery.” So, the view being espoused by the writer of the article isn’t all that different from the view of the greatest reformer. Luther consequently believed that Reason was for the Kingdom of the Left (government and civil affairs) and that Faith for the Kingdom of the Right (the church with her Word and Sacraments). So, the Secular/Religious divide isn’t an unchristian notion nor is it a product of the Enlightenment.
(I had these quotes of Luther--or similar ones--with citations prior to switching to full-time laptop use. Sorry about that!) My quote machine is currently finishing up his fourth year Concordia. When he gets out I’ll have to hit him up again. I digress…here are the “quotes“:
"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore." (German: "Vernunft ... ist die höchste Hur, die der Teufel hat.") -- "Martin Luther's Last Sermon in Wittenberg ... Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546." Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtsusgabe. (Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914),Band 51:126,Line 7ff.
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word.…”
Kobra: I think Paul spoke of the “foolishness of preaching” and also spoke of how the “cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” because the message is really not very reasonable.
There's a difference between what Luke is talking about and how "the message of the Cross" is taken by men. As my friend says, the Gospel seems upside down but it is the world that is upside down because of sin. Thus true "reason" is impossible without a Chrsitian worldview.
ReplyDeleteMicah: "There's a difference between what Luke is talking about and how "the message of the Cross" is taken by men. As my friend says, the Gospel seems upside down but it is the world that is upside down because of sin. Thus true "reason" is impossible without a Chrsitian worldview."
ReplyDeleteKobra: Yeah, if I'm grasping what you are saying correctly, I'd still have to disagree. Certainly Reason is possible for those who aren't Christians. I think that Dennis Prager (a conservative Jewish talkshow host) is extremely reasonable. That's why I listen to him. And certainly there have been many non-christian leaders, Jefferson for one, who were spot on in their use of Reason. So, with Luther I can say that it is "better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian." I hope we aren't talking past one another.
Kobra
"Reason is possible for those who aren't Christians"
ReplyDeleteIt depends to what extent we define reason. A natural, unregenerate man can reason 1+1=2 and upwards from there, they will never, however, reason to the Sovereign Creator who died on a tree.
I don't think we're talking past one another, but we're talking to different forms and means of 'reason'.
If one takes the unregenerate worldview as their basis then "reason" is certainly Luther's whore and the enemy of faith, but within the worldview of Christianity, reason and revelation go hand-in-hand in that God uses the means of grace to reveal Himself to man's reasoning. Thus, as Luke wrote to his friend, the historical facts of the Gospel serve to enrich and bolster faith rather than to oppose it.
It is not as if the words of Scripture are magical, bypassing human understanding completely, to do what God intends, rather God uses Scripture and man's intellect together to reveal Himself more fully.
Thus Christianity is not based solely on word-of-mouth type mythology as the pantheistic religions, but based on the historical figure and work of Jesus Christ...
An interesting comparitive:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/anatomy.htm
http://user.txcyber.com/~wd5iqr/tcl/hein.htm
ReplyDeleteInteresting, too.
I would say that "Reason" is "figuring something out" instead of just perceiving and accepting something as true. So, for example: If someone tells you "2+2=5" and you accept their word for it, you aren't using reason. If someone says that same thing to you and you figure in your head that 2+2 cannot be five, you have used Reason to arrive at that conclusion. So, I define Reason as something more than just perceiving and believing. Reason views operations and attempts to determine the validity of their workings whereas faith merely receives without question.
Hope this clarifies and doesn't mudify.
Kobra
I think you've clarified well. I think, however, Luther's definition (as per the bit of that article I read) is flawed in that it seemingly viewed reason always from the perspective of the unregenerate. It is in this way that the message of the cross is foolishness to unbelievers, not merely because it is unaccessable to them but because their reasoning is tainted with sin. As Romans 1 expresses, natural revelation is sufficient to hold all men in guilt of not worshipping God, if man's ability to reason was not so altered by the fall... well there would be no need for the cross.
ReplyDeleteThus, when I speak of reason, in the realm of Christianity, I'm not speaking of the ability of unregenerate men to recognize, order and distribute facts in order to come up with and believe in the Gospel, rather I'm speaking of the rationale of the believer in having faith in an unseen God.
I recognize that faith is impossible without the supernatural work of God's Spirit, yet I also note from Scripture that the Apostles and even Christ Himself don't expect people to believe in something they cannot see, taste and touch apart from some reason to do so (reason in this sense is "because") rather Christ gave witness of His claims through the miracles produced and the Apostles speak of reasoning with unbelievers. Thus God uses human reason, not apart from Spirit or without the supernatural, but together with it, to produce and strengthen faith.
Again, I see this as one of the stark contrasts between Christianity and all other religions. In the pantheistic religions a story is told and expected to be believed completely devoid of any evidence that said story ever happened. Yet in Christianity we're given direct eyewitness testimony to what occured. Is there mystery? Yes! Is there "blind faith", to some extent, yes. But God gives us the testimony of Scripture and the visible representations and facts in the Sacraments to futher atest to His promises.
Thus when I read someone placing Christianity against "reason", I must note that their understanding of "reason" is tainted by sin as evidenced by their upholding it as some arbiter of truth.
"How far do we take this? We've reached the point in society where "murder" is defined as matter of faith, not reason, as is the case in abortion... I think Van Til was right, at least on this issue, its not "if god" but "which (G)od". A society whose morals (as if there can be "morals" in a system that accepts and promotes secular humanistic evolution as a fact) are subjective, based on the whims of the majority is only a short step away from anarchy."
ReplyDeleteAnother good example is the murder involved in war. Why do so many of the same Christians who see abortion as a black and white issue of life and death also claim that war is just an unfortunate inevtiability? Convenient and suspicious morals indeed.
I do not believe that there is "murder involved in war", if we're talking about killing occuring in battle as opposed to killing of civiliains etc. God demanded in the Law "do not murder" but later demands that Israel destroy their enemies in battle. Many men, women and even children were killed yet those involved were not guilty of "murder".
ReplyDelete