Reason

Reason set Historic Christianity apart from most all other religions in the world. Oddly, many assert Christianity contradicts reason. Usually humanistic forces press this position, but sadly too many Christians half-hardheartedly reply that faith replaces reason. (My last blog discussed Historic Christianity.)

Historic Christianity emphasizes reason because we are made in the image of God - reason comprises part of that image. Historic Christianity emphasizes reason because God does so. "Come let us reason together," says the Lord. (Isaiah 1:18 - NIV.) Historic Christianity emphasizes reason because the New Testament does - as stated by the Apostle Paul, "I am not insane, most excellent Festus,' Paul replied. 'What I am saying is true and reasonable." (Acts 26:25 - NIV.) Christian leaders throughout the centuries emphasized the very important role of reason. As a result, Historic Christianity laid the basis for the emphasis on reason in Western Civilization, which has led to the advances in science, medicine, government, law, and capitalism which we enjoy today in the West, and as spread to other parts of the world.

The New Testament calls Jesus Christ the logos (Word) of God. The logos relates both to logic and to the underlying structure of the world in Greek philosophy. The New Testament says that God created the world through Jesus Christ, the logos, and he sustains and holds the world together. (Colossians 2:16.)  This forms part of why Christians expect to find reason in nature, and part of why, historically, they confidently engaged in science.

However, Christians assert there are limits to reason. They generally do not believe reason alone can prove God the existence of God by itself (though Thomists do). They do not believe reason alone produces faith.  While we need to exercise faith, the Bible does not ask for blind faith or a leap of faith.  Instead, it seeks for a response of reasonable faith, one based on sufficient evidence while also based on a child-like response to the truth.  Since we have a sinful nature, our reason often results in imperfect results.  We need revelation from God, since our reason alone cannot produce ultimate truth, only recognize and confirm it as revealed.

Historic Christianity

Historic Christianity means viewing the Church as a living organism (the Body of Christ/the Bride of Christ) over the course of about 2000 years, delivering a consistant full gospel message united by a core of doctrine, under the authority of the prophetic-apostolic Word of God, under the headship of Jesus Christ, offering each other the right hand of fellowship, with the freedom to form different churches and denominations with varying traditions. Sometimes this invisible Church has fared better than at other times, but God has always kept at least a faithful remant. It also refers to what I would call a full-orbed Christianity, as opposed to a shrunken, minimized, or debilitated Christianity. A full-orbed Christianity addresses the full scope of man and humanity, the full range of human culture and civilization, the full range of spirituality - including our ressurected, glorified bodies, as well as the full range of the Kingdom of God, starting from its iniation by Jesus on through to the new heaven and the new earth as well as the new Jerusalem, and the work of the Saints in it.

It is also a way to minimize denominational differeneces and focus on what C.S Lewis called Mere Christianity, the title to a book by that name based on a series of BBC radio addresses he delivered during World War II.

I look to Christian scholars and leaders throughout that time period starting from the early Church fathers, through St. Augustine, several Church leaders in the Middle Ages including St. Francis of Assisi (the Franciscan monks founded most all of the missions around Northern California where I live), Martin Luther, John Calvin, as well as other Reformers, Johnathan Edwards, George Whitfield, the Wesley brothers, and more recently Carl F.H. Henry, and Francis Schaeffer, as well as a much longer list. St. Augustine is particularly interesting because both Catholics and Protestants look to his writings (Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk and often looked to Augustine's writings as he struggled with the issue of justification), and his work, The City of God, which spanned human history, culture, and civilization up to the wanning days of the Roman Empire, and set the tone for intellectual thought for the next 1000 years, and still has ramifications to the present.

Historic Christianity also distinguishes from a Christianity set in the latter half of the 20th Century, that tends to not only demphasize orthodox doctrines and creeds, but also tends to act as though the Christian Church virtually didn't exist for almost 2000 years, especially those that emphasize what has been called a "super-spirituality". This type of Chirstianity tends to disrespect most all church traditions in favor of a contemporary church that emphasizes a contentless belief that Jesus will make everything all right, or worse, that Jesus will provide riches for the "King's kids." While such branches of Christianity play a vital role in the Church, and I would extend them the right hand of fellowship, I don't think they represent what I think of as Historic Christianity.

Finally, the term Historic Christianity is somewhat similar to the concept of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed (which I and others think of as the invisible church) - but these days that phrase tends to get confused with the Roman Catholic Church, so the phrase Historic Christianity works better.

Mormonism & Religious Truth Claims

How do we evaluate Mormon truth claims, or any religious truth claims, including Christian truth claims? Certainly faith is crucial. However, the object of faith is subject to the usual rules of confirmation of truth in virtually every field. Historic Christianity applies reason to confirm the claim, the rules of logic to test it, the principle of verifiability to check it, and considers the claim open to disproof. Any truth claims advanced by any religion should be open to the same tests to be considered credible, whether it be Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, and the vast myriad of other religions.

This does not mean religious claims can be tested by the scientific method. While the scientific method is vital and useful in science, it cannot be used to test all truths. The scientific method can only test events that can be repeated in a laboratory to test certain scientific theories. It cannot possibly test the invisible, the spiritual, or the miraculous. Such events, by definition, cannot be reduced to seeking empirical evidence. However, such events should not be ruled out a priori (before any evidence) simply because of a prejudice against the supernatural. This does not mean the scientific method plays no role on religious claims. Where religious claims touch on matters of history, science, and the like, the scientific method should be used to determine whether the religious claims bear out. If the God who reveals himself in writing or in miraculous acts also created the world, then there should be external evidence that matches up with the internal witness of the spirit or the witness borne out in holy writings.

If there are witnesses to the miraculous events, their testimony should be considered as the testimony of anyone to any event is considered. If they are known for their truthfulness, not known for being insane, then their testimony should be given the same weight as the testimony of those who testify about non-miraculous events are given. However, their testimony should be not be accorded special consideration because it involves a non-natural occurrence. It should be probed, poked, and subject to the normal test of truth for any testimony.

Oddly, those who would exclude even the possibility of a supernatural occurrence exhibit the very same close-mindedness they often accuse religious people of. If they were truly open-minded, as they often claim to be, they would keep their minds open to the possibility of the supernatural and miraculous. While this doesn't mean they have to adopt a faith position, at least they should not be closed to it. On the other, hand, Christians do not ask for any exemptions from the normal tests for truth, only that the same tests be applied to religious claims as in other fields. Mormons should do no less.