Reason and Christianity
In our modern age of science, it seems Christians are increasingly uncomfortable with merely having child-like “faith.” They want to claim their belief is reasonable. But there is nothing reasonable about talking bushes, snakes and donkeys, nor the other myriad fantastic stories of scripture. These things are, by definition, unreasonable.
Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Reformation, understood that not only was reason incompatible with Christianity—it threatened it. He noted, “There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach a donkey to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.”
And if trampling reason, sense and understanding under foot doesn’t do the trick, Luther suggests blinding oneself to such things: “Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him tear out the eyes of his reason.”
St. Tertullian turned reason completely upside down and inside out by claiming the more unreasonable Christianity seemed, the more reasonable it was to believe it: “And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible.”
Works Vol. 12, First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I must respond here. First of all, Luther was writing in a culture of Renaissance Humanism. Secondly, unless it is read in this context, Luther's words would have been self-refuting. In other words, if Luther's claim is that Christianity was unreasonable, and he is a Christian, his words too would be unreasonable and of no value. Surely, he wasn't saying it of Christianity per se, but of those secular humanists seeking to reason their way into the Christian faith.
Again, Luther was not trying to say that the Christian faith was unreasonable. Nor was he claiming that Christianity and reason are necessarily at odds with one another. But, rather, you cannot reason your way into the Christian faith. There's a difference.
This can be illustrated in his writings from "The Bondage of the Will"
(v) That the blindness of man does not disprove the clarity of Scripture, (658-659)
But if Scripture is clear, why is it that men of superior ability throughout so many ages have been blind at this point?
I reply, They were thus blind for the praise and the glory of "free-will", so that this highly-vaunted power by which a man can apply himself to things that concern eternal salvation might be shown up for what it is - namely, a power which neither sees what it sees, nor hears what it hears, much less understands those things, or seeks after them. To it, apply the words which Christ and the evangelists so often quote from Isaiah: "Hearing ye shall hear and not understand, and seeing ye shall see and shall not perceive" (6:9) What is this but to say that free will (or the human heart) is so bound by the power of Satan that, unless it be wondrously quickened by the Spirit of God, it cannot of itself see or hear things which strike upon ear and eye so manifestly that they could almost be touched by hand? So great is the misery and blindness of mankind!
This misery and blindness is what, according to Luther, makes the Christian faith unreasonable to some. Its not that the Christian faith in and of itself is unreasonable to Luther.
Luther's words are clear and unequivocal. Why do christians have to spin and twist the plain meaning of words under the guise of "context"? It's like Michael Steele apologizing to Rush Limbaugh, saying that the words he meant to say just came out as other words. Whatever that means. The meaning is obvious and needs no interpretation. Reason is the enemy of faith. The more rational you are, the less you will believe in the fantastical and ridiculous stories of the bible.
Hi John - another great book just crossed my path. Check out "The God Virus" by Darrel Ray. It points out why people believe irrational things in their own religions while clearly seeing the problems and inconsistencies in other religions; how it weaves its way into the political process; how it wriggles and struggles to survive even when under great attack by reason and common sense. I think the virus analogy is apt. Maybe we need to focus on strengthening our immune system (freethought) so that we are able to fight off disease.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-religion-infects-culture/dp/0970950519
Order,
First of all, I meant to offer congratulations the other day. Unless I misunderstood, it sounded like you may have welcomed a new baby into the world? Good to hear from you.
I just added a couple other quotes to the initial post showing that “reason” was not highly regarded by many influential Christians.
You suggest Luther was simply saying one cannot reason their way into faith. I can accept that. It is why it is so difficult to reason someone out of their faith. Reason has nothing to do with it. It is all about faith, or belief without reason.
That was the point of the post. Christians would like to say they have sound scientific reasons to believe, not simply faith. But they don’t. And as Luther says, the more they use their reason to examine their belief system, the more likely they will abandon it.
I chuckled when I read your Luther quote about free will being bound “by the power of Satan”. Convenient, no? According to Luther, anyone thinking for one’s self automatically proves they are being misdirected by Satan! Only by listening to Luther and his Jesus can one be assured they are headed in the right direction! What a nice power play.
Janet, with all do respect, have you ever read Luther?
Again, besides the logical fallacy presented in this post, this CANNOT be a greater misappropriation of Luther. His words are clear as I quoted: What is this but to say that free will (or the human heart) is so bound by the power of Satan that, unless it be wondrously quickened by the Spirit of God, it cannot of itself see or hear things which strike upon ear and eye so manifestly that they could almost be touched by hand? So great is the misery and blindness of mankind!
Its in light of these sentiments that he speaks of reason. Luther's favorite theologian was Augustine. He was familiar with Augustine's work on Faith and Reason. To say that Luther claimed the Christian faith is unreasonable is flat wrong. You don't have to take my word for it, there are plenty of secular scholars you have studied Luther that would state the same. (Check out Heiko Oberman for instance)
Second, please don't say that I hide behind context. I'm not hiding behind context. Context is necessary for everyone, and you would want me to treat you and your words with that same courtesy. If I say, "I want my baby back" what am I referring to? If I'm at the airport and my wife and newborn just left on a plane, you would draw certain conclusions about my wife/child. If I'm sitting at Chili's, you'd probably think I was talking about ribs wouldn't you? You'd be a fool not to because context matters. Its critical. You can't pull Bible passages or quotes from Luther out of thin air and say the meaning is clear. That's naive, foolish and inconsiderate.
Finally, and this is not necessarily addressed to Janet, what is so reasonable about atheism? I've still never heard a legitimate explanation for the origin of man. It seems reasonable to conclude that everything else you believe is unreasonable without being able to account for this. Aliens (Dawkins) and amino acids don't seem reasonable to me.
I am asking sincerely.
Hi Order,
Fair enough question. Atheism is exactly as reasonable as not believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny.
Just as non-belief in Santa does not provide any other answers about the world, neither does atheism. Science provides that and of course science does not have all the answers but we learn more every day.
John - Yes, thanks. We had a boy 3 weeks ago.
OK - so, I've read a lot of Luther. Almost everything he's written and lots written about him. I know that might not mean much to you, and I want to be careful not to simply justify Luther but address your concerns. So, let me begin by saying:
1. I can't speak to the other Christians you posted as well as I can speak to Luther. Certainly there was confusion on this issue during the age of reason.
2. Luther does use a power play against those outside the faith (linking anyone opposed to his position with Satan).
3. And you're halfway right on the third. Reason has nothing to do with it overstates it a bit. Luther does not dichotomize faith/reason. Faith consists of three things, notitia, assensus, and feducia - knowledge, assent, and trust. If Luther claims that faith is unreasonable, then faith itself would cease to exist. He does not say that.
However, there is a spiritual aspect that governs them (this is where your are right). However, to Luther the believers faith is reasonable. yet to unbelievers, the reasonableness of the Christian faith escapes them due to their depravity. Whether you agree with Luther or not is not what I'm arguing for, but rather a correct reading of Luther.
Now we can talk about whether or not its reasonable without misrepresenting Luther.
Order,
I in no way pretend to be an expert on Luther. I have read a lot of quotes and portions of Table Talk but little else. So I am truly happy to have you shed light on his thinking. I will say the little I have read struck me very unfavorably. Quite the anti-semite and had some crazy views about demons and such. But all that is beside the point here.
So let’s just clarify what Luther thought about reason and its relationship to Christianity.
1. You argue that he did not think Christianity itself was unreasonable or it would make little sense for him to be a Christian. Though I may not be convinced of this yet, it does seem very reasonable.
2. It is clear he does have a serious problem with reason. What is in question is in what relation to ChrIstianity is his opposition to reason.
3. You suggest that he is saying one cannot use reason to become a Christian. Is that right?
4. Those that believe without reason are blessed if you will and those who reject Christianity based on reason are simply showing their true depraved colors.
5. I wonder if there is any other area in life that we would ask people to accept an idea without using their reason and to suggest that their unwillingness to follow us shows their depravity and that Satan himself is clouding their judgement?
Your thoughts?
Janet, Thanks for the book suggestion. Looks great. Here is an excellent article by John Spong I think you’ll like-
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/spong983.htm
John -
I think the one clarification that I can address today is in regard to #5 Luther was a huge proponent of Two Kingdoms, the kingdom of God's left hand and the kingdom of God's right hand. These can be summarized as the civil kingdom (political realm) and the spiritual kingdom (church realm). Luther argued that by God's common grace, mankind can function well. He's quoted as saying, "I'd rather have a wise Turk than a foolish Christian" in regard to political rule. So, think about that for a moment. He's not saying that an unbeliever knows nothing.
In addition, he doesn't say that you abandon reason in coming to the Christian faith, or once you become a Christian. Rather, his point is that you cannot reason your way into the faith. The two are not mutually exclusive. Reason alone cannot save, but there is a spiritual regeneration that takes place alongside reason in coming to faith. And even this, Luther would say is reasonable, because Jer. 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all else and is desperately sick, who can understand it." In other words, you can't trust your reason or knowledge (scientia) alone. That doesn't mean you abandon it, or that the Christian faith is unreasonable, but there is a spiritual dimension that must be accounted for.
I might send this to a publisher. :) sorry for the long response.
Hi Order,
Thanks for the information, and no apologies needed for the length!
You have established that Luther does not think one can reason one’s self into faith. This makes sense since if one could “reason” their way to a conclusion, they would not need “faith.”
You also make a case that Luther did not think Christianity was unreasonable. Based on his quotes here I am not very convinced by your argument. It seems he is saying quite clearly that one mustn’t use reason to consider matters of the spirit. That doing so is very dangerous to “faith.” He is outright hostile to the notion of reason.
Post a Comment