Parkinson is a fifth-year electrical engineering student.
By David Parkinson
Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of this age has been the
decline of religious thought and reasoning. Somehow matters of
faith became separated from those of sense so that, within the
Christian world in particular, the scholarly and critical approach
to scripture is often as criticized as giving supernatural answers
to scientific problems.
In response to Jennifer Shane’s article “Religion
used to promote agenda,” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Nov.
26), we have this idea that religion is something personal that may
be added on to life, existing beyond the realm of science. Because
of this stance, we may easily fall into the popular opinion that in
matters of faith, we can all still be right while holding
dissimilar views. To criticize religion of the opposite is thus
interpreted as offensive because it is regarded as such a personal
thing.
The price of this tolerance is that religion is no longer
accountable to reason; we cannot test it to prove its worth.
Faith is similar to science in at least one fundamental area.
Most of us will never see atoms, but we still believe they are
there because the physical principles derived from our acceptance
of their existence are consistent with what we can observe on a
larger scale. In addition, from these beliefs we act and make
predictions. In the same way, on the basis of faith we trust God in
the things we cannot see because of His consistency regarding the
things we can study. Religion is not simply something you do, or
something you may be a part of. It describes that body of
information of which we have little understanding, where
supernatural insight is given to supplement our deficiencies.
The Christian religion is built on two fundamental conclusions
that we make: first, that there is a supernatural being in the
universe and secondly, that the Bible, consisting of both
testaments, is His complete, inspired and sole revelation to
humanity.
Where science is the “bottom up” perspective of our
world (based on collective and cumulative reasoning and
observation), the Christian claims the Bible is the
“top-down” perspective. They are both significant
because we have many questions about our world and our life, some
so critical that our own guesswork, our own ideas and opinions,
will not suffice for an answer.
If all we ever wanted to know was how to grow better crops or
protect against floods, then we should have stopped asking many
questions long ago. Why look beyond science? Instead, we want
meaning, purpose, beauty, love and many other things horribly
difficult to measure. It is for these things we often appeal to a
higher power with greater perspective.
What is so tragic, especially in my own faith, is that truth no
longer seems paramount, supplanted by that desire for unconditional
acceptance, socializing and the “feel-good” experience.
If we may additionally remove faith beyond the reach of critical
thinking, small wonder there is a dearth of scholars and thinkers
left to pore over scripture and examine the great questions.
Shane’s comments are a classic example of what it means to
be a Christian in this age. Her questions are more than valid and
it is to the discredit of those teaching, rather than the faith
itself, that they have not been answered.
Christianity has been badly painted by critics and suffers from
innumerable misconceptions largely because of the inability of
preachers and parishioners to teach scripture as rational doctrine.
We claim our truths should be obvious and yet we hide behind faulty
logic. Too many compromises have been made to draw crowds, too many
compromises for the sake of popular thinking. In the end, it is
truth that we sacrifice by no longer preaching it.
Shane writes “It’s hard for me to remain firm in my
Christian faith sometimes, especially when no one seems to want to
answer these questions in a direct manner.” It is very hard
when the most needy mission field is your own congregation.
For most Christians I’ve met, “accepting the
faith” means you stop well short of fully testing scripture
and analyzing the workings of God. Instead, you often learn only
the weakest of arguments to defend your faith. Nothing so fosters
misconceptions about Christianity as a Christian unclear about his
doctrine.
You are left with such deeply convicting statements as
“Well, we just don’t understand God’s ways”
or “Some things are a mystery; you must accept them by
faith.” This is the quickest way around such theological
difficulties as the Trinity and the concept of an immortal soul, as
Shane mentioned.
Yet those concepts are worth addressing frequently, especially
if the average non-Christian has a difficult time accepting them.
Believe it or not, most Christians don’t or won’t,
address them after their baptism. It takes a critical, reasoning
mind and a lot of time to explore what we would just like to hear
from the pulpit.
Is our faith so arbitrary? Does the God of scripture who
painstakingly created this world and an intricate plan for its
restitution, who reveals even the future to us through countless,
often minute prophecies and pictures to paint a very wondrous
portrait ““ does He command us to explore these things fully,
and yet blindly accept others with almost no basis?
It is unacceptable for any Christian, commanded by scripture to
study and “prove all things,” to simply let these
matters rest, and it is to our great shame that many do just that.
The opinion of Shane reflects how much our religion has allowed
itself to be pulled from scripture and study until the weakest of
arguments can detract from it.