Faith and Reason

In a recent article by Dr. Albert Mohler he asked the question, "Just how secular can an education be?" The question is in regards to a battle at Harvard University over whether or not undergraduates should have "at least one course in religion". The notion was that they should be prepared, along with everything else their education gives them, to deal with questions of faith. The question, of course, was struck down with vigor. The modern university, you see, must only be concerned about reason, not faith. Stephen Pinker, the most outspoken opponent of the idea, wrote,

The juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like "faith" and "reason" are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these.

This is what we're up against. It is a common perception, even among Christians, that "faith" means something radically different than "reason" -- that faith is faith and reason is reason and never the twain shall meet. "Faith", it is popularly held, "is believing something without good reason to do so."

I looked the word up. According to a variety of dictionary sources, the primary meaning of "faith" is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Funny thing ... I don't find anything in that which requires "without reason". In the Encylopedia of Judaism on the topic of faith in the Old Testament it says, "To those who lived in the biblical period, it seemed that evidence of God's presence and activity was so apparent that only willful blindness motivated by self-interest or being misled by a false prophet could explain disobedience." That phrase, "evidence of God's presence and activity", should shake you if you hold that sharp distinction between faith and reason because at its core faith does not require the complete lack of reason.

In the New Testament the word used most often for "faith" is peitho (in its various forms). Strong's defines the word this way: "to convince (by argument, true or false)". In other words, the New Testament concept of faith is reason that leads you to become convinced of something. In fact, without this definition there are commands in Scripture that make no sense. We are told, for instance, to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). Jude calls us to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

If we acquiesce on faith, making it something without reason, we are giving up our ability to obey these commands. You cannot defend something that has no reason. The root word there is apologia and is the word used in Greek courts for the legal defense. It is defined as "a reasoned statement or argument". Thus, if you allow "faith" and "reason" to be severed, you cannot make a reasoned statement about faith.

Tertullian, a 2nd century lawyer-turned-Christian, asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" He was warning against mingling Christian revelation with human philosophy. We've adopted the view by warning against mingling faith and reason. And there are fundamental problems with both. If reason is not an issue, why did Paul reason with the philosophers at Athens? If reason is not an issue, why did Paul use classical logic to argue for the Resurrection? If reason is not an issue, why did biblical writers offer reasons for faith? Paul wrote of eyewitnesses. John and Peter both spoke of being witnesses themselves. Why bother if reason is not an issue? Indeed, why would we be commanded to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is" if faith is without reason, the mind is irrelevant, and proof is pointless?

You'll hear that drivel a lot. Don't buy it. The Bible itself gives us reasons for believing. We are commanded to make logical arguments and proofs. Modern atheists would like to strip away one of the basic positions God requires -- reason -- but don't you let them. Some of faith may have components that cannot be tested in a laboratory, but there is no reason to think that this requires that you fold up your brain and put it away to be a Christian. The Bible demands the opposite. Don't do it.

Lies

Have you ever noticed how much lying is a part of life? I'm thinking at the moment about advertising. It seems as if we get a constant stream of lies offered as truth and it is so prevalent that we barely notice it. Me personally ... I'm sick of being lied to.

There is a glut of advertising on the market right now for weight loss. "I tried this product and lost 47 pounds the first week!" she may tell you. It's only in the fine print that you'll find the disclaimer "results not typical". But the lies go deeper. There is the unspoken suggestion that if you lose weight you'll not only be healthier, but sexier, happier, and likely wealthier. You see, all of that seems to hinge on how much you weigh. Didn't know that, did you? Well, that's what I'd conclude from the commercials. And, of course, it's a lie.

Advertising has always used sex as one of its key selling points. One after shave for men was named for the skills you would need to fight off the women if you used it. Of course, I've never seen anyone having to fight off women because they smell good. But if you use their products -- if you smell good or drive their car or wear their outfits -- you'll be in such demand that you won't know what to do. Some of these claims are explicit. One TV ad for a product essentially claims, "Use our product and you'll have great sex!" More of them are implied, with sexy people and sexy images used for selling. None of them are true.

Then there are the dating sites on the Internet. You know the ones. They will find you the love of your life. Just sign up and you'll find romance, lifelong happiness, that "one true love" who has eluded you for so long. He/she is right there on the other side of the wire just waiting for you. And while they use a variety of methods and make a variety of promises, they're all quite sure that love is just a few keystrokes away -- a claim, of course, that is not genuine.

Even outside of advertising we get these same types of lies. I saw a "helpful" bumper sticker that sagely suggested, "Treat your wife like a thoroughbred and she won't be a nag." That's a common notion. Treat other people well and they will all treat you well. The truth is that you are more likely to be treated well if you treat others well, but being a nice person is no guarantee. And that's just one example.

The one that bugs me the most is the false advertising I hear from Christians. Give your life to Christ and everything will be wonderful. We hear it directly sometimes, but generally it's just a suggestion. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." That may be true, but God's "wonderful plan" could be martyrdom for His sake. I'm pretty sure when we think "wonderful plan" we're not thinking "incredible suffering". The biblical promise for believers, however, is just that. "All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Tim 3:12). "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). Indeed, the Bible views suffering for the sake of Christ as a gift (Phil 1:29-30). The abundant life we are promised is something not of this world. The Christian's peace is a "peace that surpasses all understanding" (Phil 4:7).

We live in a world of lies. It's part of the nature of the beast, so to speak. We have hearts that are deceitful. Okay. So we recognize it and live with it. The wise person does well to analyze the advertising with which we are bombarded to find the lies and avoid them. They're everywhere, spoken or implied. The believer, however, has no business offering lies on behalf of God. He has true joy and genuine peace and more to offer, but it's not the cheap joy and peace we know in this world. Let's not tell people lies to trick them into the kingdom. That's a strategy that's sure to backfire. Lies are not God's strategy. That's from another father.

Lies People Tell - Self-righteous Hypocrites

A church in California did a series called "Confessions of a Sinful Church". They encouraged locals to come and hear why the church was sorry. For what were they apologizing? They were sorry for being self-righteous and hypocritical, for supporting racial segregation, for mistreating homosexuals, for the Crusades, and for saying that the earth is flat. Now, "racial segregation", "mistreating homosexuals", and "the Crusades" all fall in the previous entry -- the big lie where Christianity is blamed for things that violate Christianity. However, one of the most common complaints about Christians is that we are "self-righteous and hypocritical". I'd like to address that particular lie.

Yes, lie. Oh, it's not quite as egregious as the lie that people who violate all the words of Christ are "Christians", but it's still a lie. It's not quite as awful because there are some elements of truth to it. Some people -- immature or faltering Christians -- may be self-righteous and even hypocritical. It would be foolish not to admit it. But here's where the problem occurs. Self-righteousness and hypocrisy are diametrically opposed to Christianity.

Look at the concept of self-righteousness. In Christianity, we learn "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). We read "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10). We find, instead, "For our sake He (God) made Him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). In other words, Christianity teaches that we have no self-righteousness. The only righteousness we can have is righteousness imputed by grace by God from Christ. So much for self-righteousness.

Then there is hypocrisy. The concept is often misunderstood, I suspect. It means to pretend that my beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards are better than they actually are. Consider, for a moment, a mother talking to her teenage daughter. She warns her against premarital sex. The daughter responds, "You hypocrite! You had sex before you were married." And we'd all likely nod and say it's hypocritical ... and we'd all be wrong. There is no hypocrisy there. If the mother said, "You need to be as virtuous as I was before getting married, so you need to avoid premarital sex," then the mother is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is claiming to have higher virtue than is actually possessed. What is the biblical virtue we possess? Biblically, we are sinners, saved by grace. The Church, in essence, is a "losers club" of people who have all professed that we are deserving judgment from God and have no hope apart from His saving grace. We are all on the same plane, no one better than another. We are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" who by God's sheer grace have been made "vessels of mercy" (Rom 9:22-23). Where, then, is the room for hypocrisy? What "higher virtue" can we claim. Paul is quite clear that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works "that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9). Even the work we do is prompted by God "who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12). I'm sorry, but there just isn't any room for claiming a higher standard of virtue.

Now, again, are there people in the Church who are self-righteous? Sure. These are blind people unaware of where they stand. They are operating contrary to basic Christianity. Are there those in the Church who claim to have more virtue than they genuinely possess. Unfortunately, yes. They have succumbed to error, but it is error, not Christianity. In other words, the only (true) Christians who are self-righteous and hypocritical are those who are not acting as true Christians. So ... on what grounds would we want to apologize to the world? When they complain about self-righteous hypocrites, so do we.

Remember, it's easy to buy a lie. The basic problem of our sin nature is that we tend to "suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). Recognize the lies and deal with them. We have no need to defend lies.

Lies People Tell - Christ vs Science

Have you ever heard this one? "Christianity is opposed to science." We know this is true, right? I mean look at the dispute between Creationism and Evolution. Christianity claims that we are moral agents responsible for our choices and science likes to claim that we are unwitting products of our genetics, environment, and circumstances. Christianity claims there are absolutes and science claims there are no absolutes (except, of course, for science). Oh, yeah, Christianity and science are at war. And we have been for a long time. We claimed that the world was flat; science proved us wrong. We claimed that the Sun revolved around the Earth; science proved us wrong. It has ever been thus. Right?

Welcome to the second lie. While it is true that Christianity and science are disputing things today, the implication that Christianity is naturally in opposition to science is false. Traditionally, Christianity and science were not opposed. Here, think about this. Why is it that the West is largely responsible for the furthering of scientific pursuits and not the older East? Why is it that Hinduism and Buddhism and such didn't produce well-known scientists before the West did? The reason is that modern science owes its existence to Christianity. You see, Christianity assumes a Creator. A Creator assumes intelligence. Intelligence assumes order and rationality. So science, based on a notion of a rational universe, was able to progress originally to "think God's thoughts after Him".

"No, no," others will assure you, "the Church has always been opposed to science. I mean, look, everyone knows that the Church always argued for a flat Earth." As it turns out, the real myth here is that anyone ever believed in a flat Earth. According to history, there were a few who argued for a flat Earth, but by the Middle Ages the notion was long dead. It was offered as true, however, by Andrew Dickson White in his book, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom published in 1896. It was a lie, accepted as true by those who were opposed during the Enlightenment period to the Church.

"But, what about the Church and Galileo? We all know that went badly!" There are actually a lot of myths around that whole thing. We know that Galileo came up with the concept of heliocentrism -- the Earth revolves around the Sun ... except it wasn't Galileo; it was Copernicus. We know that the Church was opposed to Galileo's ideas ... except that it's not true. The Church funded his work. They simply questioned his evidence. "Simply questioned his evidence?? What about the torture and abuse he received?" Actually, when he was summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the Villa Medici in Rome, a grand estate, and treated as a celebrity, attending receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. His "torture and abuse" was "house arrest" which included visiting his daughters and publishing more papers. Of what was he convicted? He was convicted of not doing what he promised. The Church said, "If you don't have sufficient evidence to prove heliocentrism, stop teaching it." He agreed ... and then continued to teach it. He was convicted of not doing what he pledged to do. So none of this was about opposition to Galileo or heliocentrism.

Look, it's lies, all lies. Christianity started modern science. In return, moderns have lied about Christianity. Then they took up positions directly intended to eliminate Christianity. Today, science tries to supplant Christianity as the only reliable belief system in the universe. It's not true, and Christianity (and any other thinking person) disputes it. But please don't listen to all those lies about how Christianity and science are diametrically opposed, or that faith and reason have nothing to do with each other. They're confusing the issue with falsehoods that we simply need to identify as falsehoods and then move on ... to genuine issues.

Lies People Tell - Blaming Christ

The first is the biggest. It carries huge ramifications and is the source of a whole host of problems for Christians. The problem, as is so often the case, is that the premise that the opponent and the defender both accept as true is not. So we end up with a very difficult place to stand. The premise of this big lie is "Christians have caused ..." followed by a host of horrors done by Christians. You've heard it, I'm sure. We are to blame for the Crusades. Some have suggested that we are to blame for the Holocaust because, you know, Hitler was a Christian. Christians are responsible for slavery. Christians are responsible for hate crimes against homosexuals. And on and on. So we ask, "Why do you say that?" and the reply is "Whoever did it called themselves Christian, so Christians are responsible for it."

Do you see the problem? Now we're left hanging out here as if we need to defend the Crusades, the Holocaust, slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, and hate crime against homosexuals. We surely don't want to say "Christianity was wrong". So what to do?

What to do? Recognize the lie. Here, let's see if you recognize the source of this quote: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 7:21). Yes, that would be a quote from Jesus Himself. Jesus made it abundantly clear that not all who claim to know Him actually knows Him. He warned, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matt 7:15-16). For some reason, it seems, we're not allowed to do that. We are not allowed to recognize if someone is a false prophet. But John warned about this as well. "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). What was the test? "We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error" (1 John 4:6). So the test from Jesus was "their fruits" and John tells us to see if they listen to the Word. Jesus agreed: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27). Here, then, is the definition we should be using but fail so often to apply. What is a "Christian"? It is not one who professes to be one. It is one who bears fruit, who follows Scripture, who listens to Christ. Look, this isn't fine semantics. A "Christian" is simply "one who follows Christ". "Christianity", then, would be constructed not of those who simply claim the role but of all of those who follow Christ. The primary message of the followers of Christ is the Gospel -- how do we get a right relationship with God? So much of the rest is purely extraneous. But the world has bought a lie. Because someone claims himself to be a Christian, then he is. We don't have to buy that same lie.

Back that into the accusations, then. "Christians caused the Crusades." What about the Crusades was "Christian"? What in Scripture would suggest that going to war in the Holy Land was what Christ would want? What in Christ's teachings would suggest that fighting for power and land was what Christ had in mind? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! So why, simply because someone claims it was "Christian", does it get attributed to "Christianity"? Because no one is defining "Christianity" as anything except a loose claim by folks denied by the words of Christ. In other words, when people complain about the Crusades, I'm perfectly free to agree. "Yes, absolutely! Those were terrible! What does that have to do with Christianity?"

"Christians are responsible for slavery." Where, in the following of Christ and the message of the Gospel, do we find the slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries? (Important note: The "slavery" of the Old Testament and the "slavery" of the 18th and 19th centuries were not similar. Another lie.) In truth, it was Christian abolitionists that brought about the end of the practice. The abuses that define our modern perception of slavery are in direct opposition to Christ and the Gospel. So ... why is it that Christianity is blamed for something that Christ and the Gospel would oppose?

It's the same with the rest. When Hitler acted in a purely non-Christian manner, why is Christianity blamed? When people commit hate crimes clearly in opposition to Scripture, Christ, and the Gospel, why is Christianity blamed? "They did it in the name of Christianity" is not a sufficient reason to blame Christianity. Here's the story I told someone awhile back when he made that assertion. "Imagine that I come to you one day and pull out a gun and tell you, 'I'm going to have to kill you.' You say, 'Hey! Wait! Why?' I tell you, 'Your wife told me to.' You say, 'That can't be; my wife loves me.' Why is it that someone who claims to do something in the name of your wife is immediately discounted because you know your wife better than that, but someone who claims to do something in the name of Christ is accepted at face value even though we know Christ better than that?"

Don't buy the lie. Things done "in the name of Christianity" are not the same as actual Christian behavior. You see, if we recognize that lie at the outset, it becomes much easier to short-circuit the discussion. "No, you're absolutely right. Those things are absolutely wrong. The only problem is it wasn't Christians involved. It was bad people misrepresenting themselves." And the blame gets placed where it ought to be rather than at the feet of Christ.

Lies People Tell - Intro

I've been so impressed lately with the vast volume of lies that people tell that I feel I need to address some of them. You see, it seems like we who believe we need to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3) often find ourselves defending what turns out to be lies. In a large number of cases they are what is called "strawman arguments" where someone attributes to us beliefs we do not have and then explains why we're wrong. And we try to explain why we're not ... but we don't hold the thing we're defending. An example might be when anti-Reformed theology folks argue that Reformed theology doesn't believe that faith is necessary for salvation. "You Calvinists believe that God chooses whom He will save and God gives them faith, so faith isn't necessary." Well, yes, we believe God chooses whom He will save ... but that doesn't preclude the necessity of the chosen exercising their God-given faith. You see, it would be easy to end up trying to defend against the conclusion -- "faith isn't necessary" -- but the lie occurred in the transfer of claim to conclusion. The anti-Reformed folks will argue, "It's absolutely clear from Scripture that faith is necessary for salvation" and the Reformed folks would ... cheer in agreement ... except we end up trying to defend against this ... lie.

I'm obviously going to have to make this a series on the topic because the volume and scope of these lies is huge. The goal, however, is to make things easier for you. It's difficult at times to try to explain your position in terms of nuances, but when the attack is simply a lie, it becomes a lot easier. It's hard when you have to explain, "Well, that's close to what I believe, but it's not quite and here are the shades of meaning that you missed." It's much easier when you can simply say, "No, that's completely wrong information. Here's the truth." Unfortunately, some of these lies have been repeated so many times that they've become accepted as true without examination and then we end up stuck with a lie against which we need to defend. So I want to address those types of lies and see if we can step out, just a bit, from some of the false accusations that we've been told are true and we've been hard-pressed to defend against. I hope it will be a beneficial series for you. Keep your eyes peeled for future installments.