On Reconciling Friends

One of the perennial charges leveled against orthodox Christianity has been that it rejects reason. The whole nature of faith, we’re told, is opposed to rational thought, and the Christian faith is simply another superstition fit for foolish ears. Doesn’t even the apostle Paul admit as much? Didn’t he say that his preaching was “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18)? Didn’t he warn against “philosophy and vain deceit” (Colossians 2:8)? Isn’t Christianity just another form of irrationalism?

Unfortunately some Christians—even some Calvinists—have encouraged this attitude with their day-to-day practice and even an underlying irrationalistic theology. It’s no secret these days that the stereotypical “fundamentalist” is an ignorant, loud-mouthed, and unsophisticated Bible-thumper. And to some extent the stereotype is true; many Christians have proven themselves quite incapable of serious intellectual argumentation.

But does Christian thought in fact reject or mistrust reason? The answer, in two senses, is both yes and no. We have to know what is meant by reason. Definitions are important, and when a word is thrown around without a clear explanation, debate becomes murky.

One definition of reason, of course, is what we should really call logic. Formal deductive logic, based on the laws of syllogistic reasoning, is the science of necessary inference. Logic determines what conclusion, if any, we can draw from two premises. And if “mistrusting reason” means rejecting logic, then Christians (or at least consistently biblical ones) don’t mistrust reason at all. In fact, the law of contradiction is actually a part of God’s thought (Titus 1:2), as well as an element of every sentence and word in Scripture¹. Far from being worldly or untrustworthy, logic is an indispensable tool for studying and interpreting the Bible².

But many definitions of the term reason go beyond formal deduction. Twentieth-century philosopher Edgar Sheffield Brightman, for instance, contended that reason is “the body of most general principles used by the mind in organizing experience” and that this body of principles is “concrete and inclusively empirical, not merely abstract and formal.” ³ Reason or rationality, as illustrated by Brightman’s terminology, has a broader connotation than logic and logical. Douglas Jones puts it more correctly when he defines reason as “conforming one’s beliefs to the highest norms of thought” because “reality determines rationality.” ⁴

And here is where the trouble sets in. Christians and non-Christians have views of reality that result in conflicting standards of rationality. In Greg Bahnsen’s words: “In the generic sense ‘reason’ simply refers to man’s intellectual or mental capacity. Christians believe in reason, and non-Christians believe in reason; they both believe in man’s intellectual capacity. However, for each one, his view of reason and his use of reason is controlled by the worldview within which reason operates.” ⁵

Former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, for example, identifies “reason” with “modernity”:

As I look back at those turbulent decades, I see a time of challenge to a basic tenet of modern society: faith in reason. No one can miss the reality of that challenge after Sept. 11. Islamic fundamentalism, rejecting the rational processes of modernity, menaces the peace and security of many societies. … Religion and extreme nationalism have formed deadly combinations in these decades, impervious to reason.⁶

To these sentiments Brightman would add that his concrete and inclusively empirical reason “is the supreme source of religious insight” and that “revelation must be judged by reasonableness, and not vice-versa.”

But the Christian rejects both of these definitions of reason. Why, we ask, should modernity, empirical data, and experience be the “supreme source of religious insight”? Brightman may assert that revelation must be tested by empirical norms and not vice-versa, but such an assertion cannot be proven by mere empirical data. It is simply Brightman’s own religious conviction.

Christianity, in contrast, denies that “revelation must by tested by reason.” The Old and New Testaments set forth God and His propositional revelation as the fundamental presupposition of knowledge. The fear of the Lord is the beginning, not the end result, of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7).

The New Testament more fully explains this concept and its relation to Christ. In Him are hid “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Christ is not merely the end of true wisdom and knowledge; He is its source. Christ, in fact, is the Logos—the rationality, the wisdom—of God Himself (John 1:1; I Corinthians 1:24). And He, not Brightman, is Lord of the intellect. As Jones concludes: “[T]he distinction between reason and faith dissolves in an interesting way. Reason, as conformity to the highest norm, is identical to biblical faith. To disobey the person and word of the sovereign God is pure irrationality and faithlessness.”

The Christian, when asked to reconcile faith and reason, responds with the comment Spurgeon made on another subject: “I do not attempt to reconcile friends.”

¹ Without logic, the opponents of logic could not even read the Bible, for the denial of the law of contradiction annihilates all intelligible discussion, including discussion of what is and isn’t worldly. A word may have several meanings, but if a word could mean everything—including its negation—it would have essentially no meaning. As the Grand Inquisitor from The Gondoliers put it, “If everybody’s sombodee / Then no one’s anybody!”

² For example, Paul uses a modus tollens argument in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 (as does Jesus in John 8:39-40), and John 8:47 is an AEE-2 syllogism. Another use of logic in theology is consistency as a test of truth. But unfortunately this application of logic has fallen into some disuse among proponents of theological paradox.

³ Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, cited in Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Hobbs, NM: Trinity Foundation, 2nd ed., 1995), p. 109.

⁴Douglas Jones, “Abraham the Rationalist,” in Credenda/Agenda, vol. 5, no. 5.

⁵Greg L. Bahnsen, “At War with the Word: The Necessity of Biblical Antithesis,” in Antithesis, vol. 1, no. 1.

⁶Anthony Lewis, “Hail and Farewell,” New York Times, Dec. 15, 2001.

Christopher Alexion is a homeschooled high school senior with interests in a Calvinistic view of apologetics, philosophy, and politics. He pursues these interests through writing, and several of his articles have appeared on the Internet. When not immersed in an essay or good book, however, he can often be found listening to secular music (from the Baroque era), working on projects around the house, and—though not often enough—playing baseball. He lives in New Castle, Delaware.