Not long ago, a cable TV show host, who is an outspoken atheist, had on his show a relatively well-known Christian pastor. In a discussion about morality and faith, which was overall friendly, the host asked the pastor why “faith” is a good thing. This appears innocent enough and is, I think, a good question. I wonder how many of us would have a good answer for this question. But the host didn’t leave it there. Here is how the full question was asked: 

“Why is faith good?  Why is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking a good thing?” 

Now this is of course a leading question, since the host is attempting to force the pastor to answer the first question in light of the definition found in the second.  It can be difficult to give a straightforward answer to these sorts of complex questions.

How Christians talk about faith

So it is an unfair question but really it is only sort of unfair, given the way that many Christians talk about faith. Many Christians seem quite happy to talk about faith as necessarily irrational (reason is incompatible with faith) or a-rational (reason is harmful or irrelevant to faith). Sometimes the thought seems to be that faith, in a way, takes over or fills the gap when our reasons run out or, even worse, reason is detrimental for faith. It’s like a seesaw. The more reason one has, the less faith. The more faith, the less reason.

Many Christians seem to embrace the idea that faith and reason are completely separate pursuits. There’s your rational pursuits on one hand (science, political platforms, etc.) and your faith pursuits on the other and never the twain shall meet. On this latter notion, evidence against (or for) the claims of Christianity are irrelevant since evidence has nothing to do with faith.

What is reasonable faith?

On my view, it is a very serious mistake to think of faith as irrational or a-rational. However, I want to be clear at the outset that there can be an overreliance on reason, especially if we think of reason in its more academic sense. No one needs a well worked out, logically sound argument with premises that entail a specific conclusion to have reason for belief. You won’t last long if this is your criterion for rational belief. If you find yourself standing in the way of oncoming traffic, please don’t try to formalize an argument before stepping aside! The seeing of oncoming traffic should be reason enough.

It is also important to mention that one can be very rational in believing something even if one is not able to articulate what one’s reasons are. I think most committed Christians have reasons to believe that Christianity is true. Most Christians have things like religious experiences, answered prayers, an experience of God’s providence in a time of need, the testimonies of others of these things, and so on. Moreover, the world testifies of God’s existence, in both its mere existence and its design. If cornered, one may not be able to, on the spot, articulate these reasons, but it simply doesn’t follow that one doesn’t have them. On my view, Christians are far more rational in their faith than even they realize. They just haven’t reflected carefully enough to be ready to give that defense.

So with our understanding of “reason” sufficiently broadened, I want to make the claim that to think reason either runs contrary to faith, floats freely of faith or that faith is an otherwise blind, reason-less pursuit are not biblical views. 

The blind faith challenge

I have often challenged my students, as something of an assignment, to come up with one example from Scripture of so-called “blind faith” and I goad them a bit by saying that I don’t think they will find even one instance…but good luck trying. There is always at least one enthusiastic student who cannot wait for the next time we meet and will offer a narrative such as Abraham offering up Isaac as a sacrifice, in Genesis 22:1-19, as an example of blind faith. The thought seems to be that Abraham had all the reason in the world not to go through with the sacrifice but chose to blindly place his faith in God. Again, it is of course the case that Abraham did not have a formalized argument for sacrificing Isaac but is it true to say that he had no reason at all? Even though the command would have been horrifying, as a dad, it seems to me that Abraham made a very rational choice.

What reason did Abraham have?

We should keep in mind that God spoke verbally to Abraham (give that one a second) and told him to sacrifice his son. By this time, Abraham had come to believe (for good reasons!) that God is the one and only almighty God. It wasn’t so long before this event that Abraham and Sarah had had Isaac. Every child is of course a miracle but it is on a whole different level when Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is in her early 90’s. This undoubtedly expanded Abraham’s understanding (to say the least!) of what God is able to do and even more importantly it expanded his understanding that God is steadfastly faithful to fulfill his covenant promise. In a word, God proved himself to Abraham to be trustworthy or what we may call faith-worthy.

With all of this as backdrop, when the almighty God of the universe shakes the sound waves and tells you to do something, is it not eminently rational to act accordingly no matter how crazy the request sounds to us? It’s true that he had some competing reasons, but they pale in comparison to the reasons he had for going through with the sacrifice.

Peter and perfectly good boat

This is not unlike Peter’s cognitive situation on the Sea of Galilee. In Matthew 14:25-32, Peter demonstrates his faith in the person and power of Jesus by jumping out of a perfectly good boat and, as a result, Jesus enables him to walk on water. But Peter starts looking around at some competing reasons suggesting walking on the water in a violent storm is not such a good idea and he quickly cedes his trust away from Christ. It is not as if Peter lacked reasons for trusting Christ, given all that Peter had seen and come to believe about him. His doubt was the irrational choice. So it seems to me that these are examples of responses of reasonable faith (or the lack thereof as it turns out for Peter) rather than examples of blind faith. 

The incoherence of blind faith

One reason that I am so confident my students will never find any examples of blind faith is that I am not sure it is a coherent notion. What would that look like to trust someone or something for no reason at all? Take for example, the “faith fall” you maybe did or have seen in a High School youth group. This is where one student stands on a table or chair with his or her back to a group of peers whose arms are interlocked together. Without looking, the student is meant to fall into the arms of the student’s peers. This is sometimes said to illustrate faith because the student who falls is not looking and has to “blindly” trust his or her peers. But how blind is this? I very much doubt any of us would take the fall unless we knew there were a pile of arms behind us. In other words, the student has pretty good reasons for thinking that this will go well. For it to be blind, you would need to just fall at some random moment in the hopes that a group of peers had strategically gathered behind you. I don’t recommend this for your next youth meeting, nor do I recommend understanding faith as reason-less for our pursuits of God. 

It is ALWAYS more rational to trust the God of the universe and submit ourselves to him!

(a version of this article originally appeared on www.theologicalmatters.com which is no longer on the web)

I believe apologetics is extremely important and has great value. But it doesn’t have the power to save a soul. No amount of apologetics gets someone into the kingdom of God. It’s only the gospel that has that power (Rom. 1:16).

Now I realize no sane Christian actually claims apologetics has the power to save. People who make use of this sentiment are typically criticizing apologetics. Years ago, I was speaking with an prominent Christian theologian who was suggesting apologetics didn’t have much value since, as he said, he’d only led no more than 5 people to Christ through apologetics. My response was (said as nicely as I could) that he hadn’t led anyone to Christ on the basis of apologetics! Apologetics doesn’t have the power to save.

The value of apologetics

Can apologetics be instrumental in in one’s journey to Christ? Of course, and this is where there is significant value. We’ve all needed reasons to believe along the way. For example, it may have been hearing a powerful testimony about how someone’s life was radically transformed in coming to Christ. This constitutes a reason (i.e., it is an apologetic) to believe Christianity is true, good, and beautiful. All Christians have reasons for the hope that’s within and to give a defense of these is reasons is to give an apologetic (1 Peter 3:15).

But merely having Christian beliefs is of course not to have saving faith in Christ. There are plenty of people with Christian beliefs (especially in churches here in the Bible belt!) in the same way that the demons believe but also shudder (James 2:19). These may believe intellectually but they have not placed their faith in Christ.

In short, beliefs based on apologetic arguments do not save. Apologetics can have tremendous instrumental value, but it is only the gospel that has the power to save.

All Christians need to make clear the beauty and brilliance of this gospel.

What is the gospel?

Ok, real quick, what is the Christian gospel? God is maximally great in every perfect and, as such, holds the whole universe into being as its source and purpose. In short, all of reality points to and is the result of the glory and greatness of God. We humans, however, choose to live out of step with this and, in a very fundamental way, fail to make our lives point to the glory and greatness of God. We, in fact, attempt to point to our own glory and greatness every chance we get, even if very subtly. In short, we, in our fallenness, live sinful lives morally out of step with God and stand, therefore, condemned. But here comes the gospel (i.e., good news): God, in his love, provides a way of salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In short, God-incarnate suffers our debt. We ought, therefore, to repent and point our lives squarely at the glory and greatness of God as we entrust ourselves to Jesus as Lord. And this brings us peace with God, which is the way of genuine human flourishing.

The beauty and brilliance of the gospel

By my lights, there simply is no bigger, no better, no more beautiful idea in the history of the world. I think it is intriguing and attractive all on its own and I would put it up against all the great philosophical and religious ideas throughout the history of the world. To me, it is peerless.

In fact, when people reject Christian belief, they don’t usually say that the gospel itself is somehow flawed or not good enough. It is usually something else about Christianity that they find objectionable. Perhaps they think Scripture is historically unreliable, or that an all good and powerful God cannot be squared with evil, or that the Old Testament God is not worthy of worship, or some other intellectual objection.

Too good to be true?

The issue people have with the gospel seems to be it is, in a way, too good to be true. If I’m honest, I really sort of get this. It can almost feel too good to be true in the way of a fairy story or a myth.

It is indeed a good story. But, in contrast to a typical myth, it is objectively true.

This is exactly where C.S. Lewis found himself. He loved myth, as it is found in cultures throughout history. He had no problem with the gospel as myth, but he didn’t think it could be an explanation of the world since reality was, for him, explained by naturalistically by science. It wasn’t until J.R.R. Tolkien, et. al, convinced him to consider the gospel as a true myth.

A myth is a richly beautiful story that teaches us the purpose and meaning of life. It, in a way, enchants the world with value and purpose. But typically a myth is itself a fictional story or a metaphor. But it was the idea that Christianity is a factual myth, a myth that played out in a real place at a real time, a myth that actually enchants the world with real meaning, purpose and value, that set Lewis on his journey towards Christian belief.

The offense of the gospel

But there is of course a sense in which the gospel is an offense. That is, it is supremely humbling and often an affront to be told we are sinners and are, therefore, condemned by a holy God. We naturally want to say that we are not so bad and we certainly don’t want to yield control of our lives.

The gospel is indeed offensive in this way. And it often takes us realizing the depth of our sins to see our need. One doesn’t need good news unless one has become convinced of some significant bad news!

The the consequences of the gospel

So when we stop to consider the claims of Christianity, we realize these are extraordinarily big claims with extraordinary consequences. If true, our lives are simultaneously given a kind of infinite worth while simultaneously declaring our lives over, as they stand. In the Christian gospel, we are children of God with infinite value as image bearers but are also called to take up a cross as we walk towards the execution of our sinful selves.

The gospel is beautifully rich and grants eternal hope while being utterly humbling and, in a way, devastating to our temporal lives.

Now I realize I’ve given you no reason to think the gospel is true in this post. This is where apologetics comes in. But remember, it doesn’t have the power to save.