A common, deeply ingrained idea in our modern world is that faith and reason are adversaries. Conceived this way, reason is thought to be about following the evidence wherever it leads; whereas, faith is conceived as believing in things for which there is no evidence. Therefore, when we say a person has faith, what we often mean is that he lacks any evidence for what he believes. Ergo, it is not uncommon for critics of Christianity to say that believers engage in a form of self-deception or superstition because they are unwilling to submit their beliefs to the rigors of evidence or inquiry. From a Christian perspective, the adversarial view between faith and reason is called fideism. Unfortunately, many Christians believe in fideism.

I believe that it is a grave mistake to allow faith and reason to be cast in an adversarial relationship. There are other ways to approach the problem. There are actually four different ways of formulating the relationship between faith and reason.

1. One formulation is termed the “conflict model.” Here the objectives of faith and reason are essentially the same (i.e. explaining the meaning of the world). Consequently, when people of faith and those who follow unaided reason disagree, there develops a clear rivalry or conflict between religion and secularists. Fundamentalist and aggressive atheists tend to prefer this formulation. The conflict model is, obviously, adversarial.

2. A second formulation is termed the “incompatibilist model.” In this view, the methods and ends of faith and reason are seen to be distinct. Thus, the two can be compartmentalized into their separate realms. Often those drawn to a more “liberal” view of Christianity or who prefer a multicultural society also adhere to the incombatibilist model because it seems to reduce conflict.

3. The third formulation is called the “weak compatibilist model.” Here it is believed that dialogue is possible between faith and reason even though both represent distinct and separate spheres of influence. For instance, faith may believe in miracles while reason is directed toward scientific enquiry. The two separate spheres may dialogue and are not necessarily in conflict. Those in the Reformed tradition usually adhere to this view.

4. The “strong compatibilist model” is the fourth formulation. In this view there is no conflict between faith and reason because they form an organic whole. Each, in their own way, complement one another. Natural law theology springs from this model. Here it is believed that reason can be used to demonstrate the validity of articles of faith and defend them against objections. Reason does not replace faith, because faith is essentially supernatural; however, neither does faith eliminate the need for reason because it can strengthen one’s understanding of the articles of faith.

If you haven’t guessed, I consider myself to be a strong compatibilist. I take this position for two reasons. The first is that I believe the strong compatibilist model is taught by the Apostle Paul in the Bible. The second reason is that it makes more sense.

The classic passage where Paul connects the natural order of things to divine revelation is found in Romans 1:

Romans 1:19-20 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Remarkably, Paul indicates that God can hold all men morally accountable because God’s divine attributes, power and deity can be “clearly seen” in what He has created. Of course, we know from the full counsel of Scripture that through man’s willful disobedience his mind has been darkened by self-deception and Satan has deceived him into believing that these things are not true. Yet, this does not change the essential truth that Paul identified in Romans 1. Therefore, we can ascertain from Paul’s statement that both creation and revealed religion declare God’s nature and that it is incumbent upon man to reach out to God through both. In fact, Paul states exactly this in Acts 17:

Acts 17: 26-27 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Here, again, Paul declares that what God has made has the purpose of stimulating man to seek Him. In order to do this, man must use his reason.

However we may apply these insights to those who are unconverted to Christianity, we can see that it makes complete sense that Christ’s followers should explore every avenue available to them to further their grasp of divine truth. No contradiction can stand between the inquiry of reason and the revealed truths of Christianity.

About a decade ago it finally struck me that Americans worship their feelings. I had noticed that, in my little neck of the woods, Christianity had morphed into a “feelings-driven” religion, so I started mentioning this occasionally from the pulpit. I must say, this has never been well received. Then in the last several years a few books have come out that have identified the same trend. Usually these books classify the trend as one of increasing feminization or sentimental-ization. I think it is more courageous to say that Western culture has been trending for about 150 years away from the Patriarchal which elevated masculine values toward increasing feminism which not only elevates female values, it marginalizes and stigmatizes traditional masculinity. I have written about this a number of times. Needless to say, this is not a popular subject.

My latest encounter with feelings-driven (feminized) Christianity came through conversations with those involved in college ministries. In one conversation with two college-age men, I was dumbfounded by their extremely low expectations for themselves as Christian leaders. Their lifetime hope was to each impact one person for the Lord. When I heard this, I thought to myself that I hope to accomplish that every week of my life. When I explored this with my wife—who is a family therapist—she immediately noted that this is the effect of cultural feminization. As she said, “It is masculine to set and achieve goals; these guys have been indoctrinated against traditional masculine values.”

Troubled by this, I recently talked with the student’s-pastor of a Christian university. He is an extremely thoughtful and well-educated minister who has a strong influence with college students. He assured me that my conversation with the two young leaders was not an aberration. He added that students—as a rule--are intensely interested in “deep relationships” with a few people. He noted that he really has to work to get them to think beyond their very small personal world of highly nurtured relationships.

I also had an opportunity to talk with the leader of the largest Christian para-church youth ministry in our area. He confirmed these trends and noted that his national leaders are toying with the idea of scrapping their historic commitment to public evangelism in favor of developing ministries that only cultivate interpersonal relationships which may or may not lead to sharing the gospel. He noted that increasingly people are edgy about setting goals, accomplishing tasks and accountability for their actions. More and more, youth workers prefer amorphous activities that center on “hanging” together in an unstructured nurturing environment.

In talking about and identifying this feminine trend, I have been struck by how defensive people become—men and women. For some people, literally, it is as if I have said something with a horrible cultural taboo attached to it. I probably have. I’ve noticed that they either become agitated thinking that I am suggesting that women should be oppressed or they think I am suggesting that Christianity become a Neanderthal religion. I don’t want either option. However, I do want people to notice the cultural influences that transform Christianity in an unhealthy way. I believe it is very unhealthy for Christianity to be feelings-driven and all about “deep relationships” with a few people. To me, such a thing is nuts. Additionally, if evangelical Christianity continues to trend this way, I have serious doubts that it can maintain its doctrinal stability, its commitment to evangelism, or its ability to attract strong men.

Because medieval theologians engaged in the rigorous discipline of dialectical discussion by which they applied sanctified human reasoning to the revealed truths of Christianity, they were able to develop many helpful insights about God. In some ways the blog-o-sphere comes close to the dialectical process that medieval theologians used. Religious blogs with their comment threads may not have the formal discipline of the medieval disputation, but they do give their participants the opportunity to ferret out ideas in a dialogue with others. This is good.

One of the ancient and medieval Christian ideas about God that usually causes modern people to “flip-out” is divine impassibility. Divine impassibility, however, seemed obvious to them. To them, it was obvious that an impassible being is greater than a passion-able being. Impassibility simply means that a being is not moved by passions. Our passions or emotions are things that happen to us. We “get” angry because somebody says something unkind about us. We “get” sad because a sorrowful thing happens to us. However, God, who is the greatest being, cannot have anything outside Himself that can affect Him. If He could, this would imply that something outside Him can move Him or is greater than Him. Additionally, God is spirit and, therefore, He does not have a bodily nature (we do not have in view here Christ’s incarnation). Passions and emotions are bodily responses to environmental stimuli.

One of our problems in understanding God’s impassibility is that we have a tendency to project human characteristics upon God. We rightly think that a human who is emotionless would be a strange and cold individual. Truly, a person who could not feel emotions would be an aberration and represent a defect in human nature. However, we need to remember that God is not a human.

Okay, but what about God’s mercy? Doesn’t the bible say many times that God is merciful? For instance Psalm 110:4 says, "He is a merciful and gracious Lord." How can God be merciful and compassionate toward us and, yet, be impassible? This question was one that medieval Christians wrestled with. St. Anselm developed a terrific insight about God’s goodness on which others such as Aquinas expounded. Here is Aquinas answering this tricky question. Keep in mind that he is standing on the shoulders of Anselm and others.

(ST I, Q. 21, A. 3) “I answer that, Mercy is especially to be attributed to God, as seen in its effect, but not as an affection of passion. In proof of which it must be considered that a person is said to be merciful [misericors], as being, so to speak, sorrowful at heart [miserum cor]; being affected with sorrow at the misery of another as though it were his own. Hence it follows that he endeavors to dispel the misery of this other, as if it were his; and this is the effect of mercy. To sorrow, therefore, over the misery of others belongs not to God; but it does most properly belong to Him to dispel that misery, whatever be the defect we call by that name. Now defects are not removed, except by the perfection of some kind of goodness; and the primary source of goodness is God, as shown above (6, 4).”

My super-summary of Aquinas is the following. Mercy as two aspects; one aspect is the affect that the misery of the sorrowful has upon the emotions of others and the second aspect is the relieving of the suffering by the merciful. Of the two aspects, it is greater to relieve suffering then to simply feel the suffering of the sorrowful (i.e. “I feel your pain”). While God does not have passions and, therefore, does not get miserable because of someone’s suffering, it is particularly appropriate for Him to relieve the sufferings of His creatures (the greater aspect of mercy). He does this out of His goodness which demonstrates His divine perfection.

There is more than can be said in regard to how mercy is related to God’s justice and generosity, but this should suffice to show how God’s impassibility does not keep Him from being merciful.

There is an old saying that is attributed to the Stoics, Ipsa qvidem pretivm virtvs sib, or virtue is its own reward. The Stoics did not necessarily believe that there was an afterlife, so their point was that a virtuous life was the best life to live. In this sense, a virtuous life was its own reward. However, the Christian philosopher and statesman, Boethius, had another way of understanding this saying.

Just before his execution in 525 AD, Boethius wrote an intriguing dialogue between himself and Lady Philosophy called “The Consolation of Philosophy.” In this neglected but important work, Boethius wonders out loud why bad people seem to prosper and good people often suffer. Lady Philosophy responds with this interesting statement (The Consolation of Philosophy, Part IV):

“For good and evil are so set, differing from each other just as reward and punishment are in opposition to each other: hence the rewards, which we see fall to the good, must correspond precisely to the punishments of the evil on the other side. As, therefore, honesty is itself the reward of the honest, so wickedness is itself the punishment of the wicked. Now whosoever suffers punishment, doubts not that he is suffering an evil: if, then, they are ready so to judge of themselves, can they think that they do not receive punishment, considering that they are not only affected but thoroughly permeated by wickedness, the worst of all evils? 'Then, from the other point of view of the good, see what a punishment ever goes with the wicked… In this way, therefore, all that falls away from the good, ceases also to exist, wherefore evil men cease to be what they were. The form of their human bodies still proves that they have been men; wherefore they must have lost their human nature when they turned to evil-doing. But as goodness alone can lead men forward beyond their humanity, so evil of necessity will thrust down below the honorable estate of humanity those whom it casts down from their first position.”

Through the mythical character of Lady Philosophy, Boethius makes at least two important points. One is that good people—no matter what happens to them—as long as they act virtuously, attain the reward of goodness. In other words, good people become good. Likewise, evil people become evil. Yes, evil people may seem like they are succeeding; but, their evil deeds make them ever more evil and evil is a punishment. Evil is a punishment because it is a non-thing. Only the good truly has substance. Evil is a falling away from the good and ultimately goes nowhere. This leads to Boethius’ second point.

Lady Philosophy tells us that “evil men cease to be what they were.” While goodness leads men above themselves to God; evil degrades men and makes them sub-human. These things, Lady Philosophy says, are by necessity. Virtuous actions, by their very nature, necessarily lead men toward God while evil deeds necessarily lead men away from God to become animal-like beings.

In these ways, Boethius assures us, the good person always prospers and the evil person always fails. In fact, Boethius later makes the point that the supposed success of the evil person is actually a superficial misreading of the true situation. The unrepentant evil person, who seems to be succeeding, is actually becoming more miserable because he is evermore immersed in his own evil. In the moral and eternal sense, there really is no such thing as bad things happening to good people.

James 1: 2-4 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.
Romans 5: 3-5 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

The subject I want to consider here is self-defense. Is it wrong for a Christian to defend himself or his family from aggressive attack? I’ll start with Thomas Aquinas’ classic insight.

In the Summa, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 64, Answer 7, Aquinas explains his position on self-defense. He holds that a police officer can intend to take the life of an aggressor as long as he uses only necessary force. In this case the killing of the aggressor is for the self-defense of the common good, and because the officer does not have any personal animosity toward the individual (he’s not speaking of rogue police). In the case of a private individual’s self-defense, Thomas notes that the slaying of an assailant is justified as long as it results from the use of minimal force and is not intentional. The difference is that a police officer can intend to kill an aggressor if the situation warrants taking a life human life. An example might be the police sniper that shoots a crazed man holding a child at knifepoint. On the other hand, the private individual should not intend to kill an aggressor; rather, he should only intend to preserve his life or the lives of his loved ones. If the private individual kills an aggressor in self-defense it should be because there was no other way to preserve his life. Here is what he says:

“Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense."

The Divine Law states the following:

Exodus 22: 2-3 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”

Here we see that if a defender kills an intruder at night he is not held liable for the intruder’s death. However, if he kills the intruder in broad daylight when he can see if the intruder is unarmed and not a lethal threat, then he is held culpable for the intruder’s death. During the day, presumably because he can recognize and later have the intruder arrested, he is not to kill him (given that the situation is not life-threatening). This is a case-law application of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” God's Divine Law, therefore, permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force. However, the use of deadly force is restrained by Divine Law depending upon the actual threat to the defender’s life.

In the New Testament there is an intriguing instruction given by Jesus to his disciples.

Luke 22:35-38 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." 38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Here we see that just before his passion Jesus instructed his disciples to prepare themselves for his public persecution by making sure they had a sword. A sword, until the advent of the firearm, was the most effective means of self-defense. Swords were not designed for whittling wood or hunting. Commonsense impels us to the conclusion that Jesus did not contravene the right to self-defense propagated in the Divine Law when he taught in Matthew 5 that private individuals do not have the right to take revenge for wrongs (“an eye for an eye…”). This proper understanding of Jesus’ teaching is reflected in Romans 12-13 where Paul teaches that Christians are not to take revenge and then he goes right on to indicate that the civil magistrate is divinely delegated the responsibility to punish the wrongdoer as an application of God’s wrath against him. In other words, the Divine Law allows for self-defense that might include the taking of life in extreme circumstances but does not allow for individual revenge for wrongs suffered.