I can recall several occasions where I have been warned by Christians about the (alleged) dangers of studying philosophy.
On one such occasion, some years ago, I was attending the wedding of one of my high school friends. It had been a long time since we graduated from our large, non-denominational Christian high school, so the atmosphere was something like a reunion. During the reception, I struck up a conversation with a favorite teacher of mine--he had been one of my English teachers. He told me what he had been up to and how things were going at the school, and (of course) he was curious to know what I was now doing. I told him I was currently a graduate student in philosophy (convinced that he would be pleased, if not downright proud).
His smile disappeared. He became rather serious. His tone was hushed, yet clear and direct.
"Please be careful that you do not lose your faith."
I...well, uh...assured him that I wouldn't (or that I certainly didn't intend to). He didn't seem to hear me (or seem to even want me to respond). He told me about a friend of his who apparently renounced his Christianity after pursuing advanced degrees in psychology (note: not the same thing as philosophy). He didn't want the same for me (which I genuinely appreciated). He abruptly said that it was nice seeing me again, and he walked away (which I appreciated less).
Well, this conversation has been repeated frequently. Here's the pattern: I meet Christian. Christian finds out what I do. Christian looks puzzled. Christian asks why I'm doing that. Christian warns me not to lose my faith. Christian leaves.
But why? Why warn me about philosophy?
My guess is that if I had gone into accounting or law as I initially intended when coming to Cedarville as an undergraduate in the late 90s, I would have heard no such warnings from Christians. ("Oh, you're studying accounting? Please, be sure you don't lose your faith.")
Are atheists getting similar warnings from their atheist friends? ("What?! You're studying philosophy? Please, don't lose your atheism.") I doubt it. But why not? Why not warn atheists about studying philosophy?
It seems as though the assumption is that philosophy is dangerous to Christian faith (why else the warning?) but friendly toward atheistic convictions. But why think that? Indeed, why not think precisely the opposite? ("What?! You're studying philosophy? That's awesome! I'm so happy that your Christian faith will be enriched!")
Whether the assumption is plausible or not, whether we ought to maintain it or not, it just seems that many Christians do have that assumption.
Think back for a moment.
Perhaps you have witnessed the Sunday School kid who didn't know when to stop asking the increasingly exasperated teacher why?. Perhaps you were that kid.
Or maybe you're that college kid. And your reception by some professors and peers here at Cedarville is not warm and friendly.
In the Preface to his book The Life of the Mind: A Christian Perspective, Clifford Williams identifies a number of concerns that some Christians have had about engaging in the life of the mind.
Here is how Williams' expresses some of those concerns in the Preface:
(1) "Faith... is stable and enduring. It does not change with passing whims, intellectual fads, or the advent of new theories. It remains steady through personal trials and cultural deterioration. It has the innocence and directness of a child's trust in her parents. In addition, faith focuses on one object: God. It does not go off in different directions, pursuing one then another object of devotion."
But...
"Thinkers...have drives that do not fit well with these characteristics of faith. They are impulsively inquisitive, which means they go wherever the paths they are on take them. They do not like to stay in one spot; doing so would be stagnation and intellectual death.... When they come to the end of an inquiry, they hold the beliefs they have acquired with varying degrees of tentativeness. Though they are confident about some of them, they are willing to give up others should a further consideration come to light."
(2) "Christianity... is an orthodoxy. To be a Christian is to accept long-established doctrines, which means that those who are inventive and innovative may feel constricted.... An imaginative person may experience a fair amount of unease in any of these settings."
But...
"Thinkers are...imaginative. They create new possibilities and ask "What if...?" "What if we looked at the matter from a different angle?" "What if we let go of that assumption?" They are not content to accept the old just because it is old. They want to discover new perspectives."
(3) "A chief feature of nearly every group of people is pressure to conform to the standards and expectations of the group. Without conformity, the cohesiveness of the group is lost, and individuals in the group feel disconnected from each other.... Christian churches and colleges are not immune to the pressure to conform or to an authoritarian air. It sometimes seems, in fact, as if institutional Christianity prizes conformity and engenders authoritarian individuals. Since the very identity of a Christian assemblage is threatened if its members are not Christian, conforming to certain standards becomes essential. This creates a breeding ground for exercising authority and public disapproval. It is difficult to imagine thinking Christians remaining long in such a condition."
But...
"The imaginative person...is not bound by pressure to conform. Her imaginativeness continually resists this pressure. She becomes wary of others in a cohesive group and acts with reserve and caution. Others become uncomfortable in her presence, if not outrightly suspicious.... One cannot be inquisitive or imaginative without risking not just suspicion but ostracism."
(4) "Many Christians think faith goes beyond reason. In other words, faith is not the sort of thing for which evidence can be given. If evidence for it could be given, it would not be faith but knowledge. Faith has no rational foundations, these Christians say; it is a direct and personal experience of the living God."
But...
Many Christian thinkers want to explore the rational foundations of Christianity. They want to determine whether Christianity can withstand rational scrutiny. They want to see evidence for the truth of Christianity. Believing without such evidence seems akin to intellectual suicide.And such Christian thinkers just won't do it.
(5) "If loving God is central to the Christian life, then poking around in libraries or laboratories pales in comparison. And if developing Christian virtues is of paramount importance, we need to interact with others, not just bury ourselves in books.... Focusing our attention on God and the ways of God has eternal significance, whereas directing our concerns to creaturely affairs has only temporal significance. Clearly, we should concentrate on the former and not on the latter."
But...
Many Christian thinkers value their time in their books. Books are among their conversation partners. It's a source of joy and consternation, affirmation and deep challenge.
(6) "Central...to Christianity is the division between...the saved and the unsaved.... This theme gives rise to an "us versus them" mentality. "We" are good and "they" are not; "we" are in God's favor and "they" are not. Frequently, the "they" are intellectuals: professors who ridicule the faith of their students, biologists who promulgate evolution, authors who have little awareness of Christian values, judges who rule without regard for historic Christian standards, and academics who promulgate postmodernism, relativism, and unbridled freedom. Due to these considerations, numerous Christians distrust the intellectual life. It is too dangerous, and it is corrupting."
But...
"Other Christians...believe that imagination and inquisitiveness are given to us by God. Deliberately refraining from using these gifts, therefore, is like burying our talents."
So those are supposed to be some of the tensions between Chirstians who pursue the life of the mind and Christian faith.
Questions: Work through each of Williams' points. Do any of the above tensions resonate with you in particular? How do you respond to those tensions? Consider particularly (3) above. There Williams explicitly mentions Christian colleges. Does that sound like Cedarville to you? Do thinkers risk suspicion and ostracism here at Cedarville?
Be sure to interact with each other! Please be clear and direct. And, as always, be gracious and charitable.
64 comments:
Throughout the history of the church it has frequently been at odds with reason and science, and I find it as no surprise that this trend is continuing. There are many circles even at Cedarville that have traditional thinking firmly ingrained, and some subjects should be avoided when making conversation with these individuals. I do not believe Cedarville to be forcing conformity, but it is present in our institution and judgement may occur when one breaks from the conformity. For example, if a chapel speaker were to bring up the subject of abortion and merely attempt to have an intellectual discussion on the matter, I believe that individual would likely never be allowed to speak in chapel again.
Point number one describes faith as possessing firm beliefs that are never questioned, but thinkers are bound to have doubts and question some of the less important beliefs. Instead of merely assuming that dancing or drinking alcohol is sinful, a thinker examines the origin of these assumptions and attempts to determine if they are correct. I believe that it is then natural for the non-thinkers to question that individual's commitment to Christianity if they firmly hold those beliefs to be important.
In the Bible Paul instructs the church to examine its teachings to see if they agree with scripture, and I believe that there is room for intellectuals in the church. In fact, I believe they are necessary to prevent incorrect teaching. If a preacher is preaching something incorrect, they should be challenged by a thinker instead of being permitted to lead the church astray.
-Dave D. 1100
When it was mentioned about the continuous warnings not to lose one's faith when doing philosophy, it struck me as very true. Why would that be? From my experience, I have seen believers look for answers about life and come to some very disheartening conclusions. The thing is that they did not factor in the part that God plays in our lives. They took the bad as the only thing that mattered and walked away from the faith.
In regards to point three, it does seem that Christian communities, whether colleges or churches, do seek immense uniformity. That is good to the extent of agreeing on the absolutely vital basics of the faith, but there should be an atmosphere that does allow an individual to question their beliefs and what they know in order to gain a broader perspective of God's world. Enforced unity and conformity will most likely not be conducive to a growing person. You can't stiffle one's growth just because you don't like they way they are growing. I believe that Cedarville from my experience has not stiffled my growth, rather I have been challenged and encouraged in my faith as well as my pursuit of knowlege.
I definitely agree that the usual immediate reaction of Christians is against philosophy. I think this is mostly due to philosophers of the past who reasoned against Christianity, trying to disprove religion of any sort. I hear it all the time: "religion is a crutch for weak people" and that the strong people can think for themselves. This type of thinking causes Christians to back away and refuse to even consider philosophy, before they even understand what it is.
What really struck me was "It seems as though the assumption is that philosophy is dangerous to Christian faith." I never considered that before, but I can definitely see how that could be an underlying thought. But I think the if done in the right way, philosophy can definitely and should be done in a way that glorifies God and strengthens our faith.
People groups of any sort seek the highest level of unity possible. This is certainly true of churches and Christian groups, such as organizations, schools, and colleges. That's part of why the number of Christian denominations is growing, but that's a discussion for another time.
I personally feel like at Cedarville, while there are many unifying factors, we generally challenge eachother TO ask questions and be able to answer them, in regard to our faith. Instead of condemning those who are creative and inquisitive, we encourage them and help guide each other towards Biblically correct wisdom.
Looking specifically at point (2) which, in summary, says that Christianity is an orthodoxy meaning we have a set of doctrines and we are bound by those doctrines. This means that thinking beyond this would be going against these set doctrines. Thinkers are as mentioned "imaginative" and want to look at different aspects of Christianity from a different angle. While this might seem to some as going "against the flow" of Christianity per say, I believe it is completely necessary.
Consider for a quick example different aspects of philosophy, and more specifically the doctrine of the trinity. When the Christian doctrines were established in the past the topic of the trinity was barely discussed and it was just addressed that God was incomprehensible. It takes men philosophizing about these issues in order to get to where we are today. Men like Origen of Alexandria, Aruis (nicene creed), and Augustine to name a few. Yes Christianity is an orthodoxy, but it still requires thinkers and the doing of philosophy to expand and learn more about our God and beliefs in general.
-Zack Gatlin (11:00)
While it is not true of all Christians, I do know some who are very much against subjects like philosophy or most science for that matter. I even know of some more conservative schools that won’t teach subjects like psychology because it is “evil” or “sinful.” This is a problem because we need some Bible believing Christians in these fields or the world will be getting all of its answers from unbelievers. Also, I think that Christians who think it is dangerous for people to be “thinkers” are insulting the power of the Holy Spirit. They may not be trying to, but it’s like they are saying that anyone who thinks it would not follow God. The gospel if not just for the “non-thinkers,” it’s for the whole world and the Holy Spirit doesn’t need us to keep people from thinking. Plenty of smart people have come to know Christ. C.S. Lewis didn’t stop thinking once he was saved.
Altogether, I think Cedarville does a decent job at not stuffing its views down people’s throat. Dr. Brown reminds us that we are not living the Christian life at school.
Dave, you said that you think it’s natural for the non-thinker to question an individual’s commitment to Christianity, but does something being natural make it right?
Joel, I wonder if rather than insulting the power of the Holy Spirit, they are simply denying their faith in not only the Spirit, but in the person of God. If someone is to firmly hold to an orthodox Christian view, then they would believe in both one God, and in His exclusive existence. Any god who is attributed with both the whole of creation and with unlimited power does not seem to be a god who would be easily intimidated by human thought. If there is only one God and he is the creator of all things, then it would appear that the pursuit of understanding of any of his creations would inevitably lead to him.
While an atheistic philosopher can easily miss the reality of a God, any serious Christian could not assert this of a Christian philosopher. To argue that the Christian might miss the creator by looking for him in his creation is ill-formed. An omnipotent creator God is not intimidated by the intellectual pursuits of his creations; rather, he welcomes them, knowing that their searching will only lead them into a deeper understanding of him.
In terms of Williams' third point, it seems that Cedarville as a Christ-centered institution does a fair enough job at being receptive to different ways of thinking, especially in many of the Bible classes. However, by the sheer nature of requiring students and faculty to be Christians, it leaves out a significant chunk of the world who thinks in a totally opposite way than most Cedarville students. Thus, it seems that it is entirely possible that thinking that doesn't seem to fall under orthodox Christianity can quickly be ostracized. Unfortunately, too often we have certain litmus tests for orthodox Christianity that may or may not be legitimate, such as political issues, or eschatalogical views.
Then, in reference to the fourth point, faith in many ways does go beyond reason. I would appeal to Francis Schaeffer, who said: "The Christian is not rationalistic, he does not try to begin from himself autonomously and work out a system from there on. But he is rational, he thinks and acts on the basis that A is not non-A." Reason isn't the measure of all things, especially in terms of a mysterious God, who is greater and fuller and deeper than any human could comprehend. It doesn't seem appropriate to try to understand a world that an infinte God created when we begin with our own finite reason. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with doing philosophy, as all knowledge ought to point us closer to God, but there does seem to be something wrong with trusting in philosophy to be the end-all. I would resonate with point 4, not to see philosophy as dangerous in any manner, but to keep it in proper perspective.
-TJ Pancake 9:00
Growing up, I had quite the imagination. My best friends were always the invisible ones, and whenever I talked about the adventures of my day (like riding a seahorse in the Atlantic or discovering a castle in the back yard), my parents always seemed to get this worried look on their faces. Thinking outside of the box and letting my imagination run wild have always been hobbies of mine. Even now I get a lot of pleasure from seeking out answers for myself, instead of simply believing what everyone else says to be true. As a Christian, I believe this is how God intended for things to be. Why would God put so much effort into making the human mind if He didn't intend for us to use it for ourselves? In general, I find Cedarville to be pretty open-minded and willing to listen to others' opinions, and I would hope to see it stay that way. The mind is a beautiful thing, and I believe it should be used to its fullest potential.
Emily Smith 9:00
Coming from the perspective of a new transfer student from Liberty, Cedarville seems to be much more open minded and accepting to differing beliefs than its own core doctrinal values and rules. As an example, prayer at the start of classes at Liberty was required by every professor. From my two weeks attending Cedarville, it seems to be the professor's choice. This, among other things, has given the immediate appearance of Cedarville being more open and accepting to ideas in contrast to legalism.
In regard to (4), Christianity in atheistic popular culture is not seen very highly. For example, on Reddit, the front page is usually filled with jokes involving Christianity. It is a shame that so many uneducated Christians give Christianity a bad reputation among those who truly need the Gospel.
~ Laramie H. (11:00)
While at first it seems as if the term "Christian Philosopher" is counterintuitive, as an approach to life and personal goals and affections, Williams does raise some intriguing observations as to why some arguments Christians make to the "pursuit of the mind" could be misguided. Particularly in response to (2), I believe Christians should be the first to question the long-established doctrines and traditions that have been simply accepted as church-as-usual. In many instances, apathy within a particular church community (or the Church as a whole), is the greater sin than actually questioning their belief system. If it takes an atheist to point out unchallenged theological issues being preached in our church pulpits than we have failed miserably to hold ourselves and our church leaders to Christian accountability. Perhaps to the point of discouraging honest debate of even some of the core values that we hold firmly.
Taking a step back, Christians, those that have accepted the belief system as portrayed in the Bible, do live within a truth framework that is largely by faith. But so do atheists. They live in faith that the Bible is false, that Christianity is a hoax, that a greater knowledge, outside of God and common human thinking, does in fact exist; that they just have to find it. The common denominator is that both belief systems encompass rational thinking human beings, created (or evolved) with minds capable of performing rational human philosophizing. So Williams (4) is difficult to pinpoint as just a Christian phenomenon since atheists should in fact be constantly examining their own "faith" and how it stands up with the doctrines portrayed in the Holy Scriptures. Why can't Christians examine and "philosophize" areas outside our own faith? Are we really so afraid that someone will walk away from the faith simply by taking an honest examination of its central pillars? It doesn't seem as if atheists are so persuaded, in the midst of their speculations, to give up atheism.
Per (3), it has been my experience that Cedarville University has upheld their commitment to biblical standards while still permitting, albeit encouraging, students to question and deliberate upon their faith, their upbringing, their background, in order to help students understand who they are, why they are here, and where they are going. Not to exclude those that may reach conclusions or life philosophies that seem to be adverse to the school's own doctrine of faith, but rather to be a safe, loving, supportive community to journey into a life of constant evaluation and philosophy done well.
-Adam Olson (11:00)
I have heard conversations similar to this many times. Coming from a small church comprised of many older members, the fear of fields such as psychology and philosophy were very prevalent. The best explanation I have heard to defend disciplines such as these and justify their value is to treat your study of them as if you were using scripture as a sieve. While some areas surely may not pass a Biblical evaluation (something true of most areas of study) some components truly are. Allow what you can identify as false to fall through and hang onto what is beneficial. Thinking critically and deeply about one’s faith and confronting opposing ideas are the activities that solidify beliefs.
Speaking directly to number three, I do not think that fear of ostracism is much of an issue at Cedarville. While it is a strict school, it does not seem opposed to entertaining different ideas. However, one could also say that there is not much room for differences to exist due to the very specific population that Cedarville draws in. While not all students who state that they are Christians upon admission are truly dedicated to pursuing an active relationship with Christ, one could guess that they were at least not opposed to living in a Christian atmosphere. If they were, why would they place themselves in a college that puts so much emphasis on Christ being at the center?
Aside from this, the topic that struck me the most was number six. I cannot come up with any good support for the us-versus-them mentality that the point seemed to advocate for. Firstly, viewing believers as “good” people and unbelievers as “bad” people contradicts the total depravity of humankind. None are “good” people in and of themselves. Secondly, if Christians are not to affiliate with the other camp, how are those who have “little awareness of Christian values” supposed to be exposed to Christ? We are called to be witnesses and bring the gospel into all arenas.
-Kaitlynn H. 9:00
Growing up, I had quite the imagination and was skilled in setting goals and dreaming dreams. I even wrote a book entitled, "Do dreams really come true" in elementary school. I am thankful that I get the opportunity to study at such an open-minded university where people are accepting of other people's beliefs and habits and don't judge based on physical appearance. I believe that there is always more than beats the eye with a person. While each of us are individuals with a certain path to fulfill in this lifetime, we are all still connected through the Holy Spirit. It was here at Cedarville that God really opened my eyes to the truth. I enjoy reading self-improvement books that help me gain insight into what other people are thinking and what motivates them to do what they do. I believe that God blessed each of us with unlimited potential and it's up to us to really make full use of that potential and give God our best. The mind is a beautiful thing and can really be used to impact the world if tapped into its full potential. I am also a huge believer in making use of our common sense. I feel like many people try to read into meanings instead of using their common sense to answer questions. I believe that there are some deep thinkers who ponder a certain point and then there are those who know what they want and go "do" it. I feel like it's important to take action and utilize the gift of free will instead of sitting around waiting for something to happen.
It seems unreasonable for Christians to target only philosophy as a subject that could cause a Christian to “lose their faith.” I think these assumptions stem from somewhere. There have been philosophers that have come to conclusions rejecting Christian beliefs and principles. But I believe this straying from the faith could happen while studying any subject.
Williams breaks down some of the concerns Christians have… I think he had some good points. His first point does not necessarily seem true. It is possible to stray from your faith. It may be possible to reject your faith altogether. It does not necessarily endure through everything and I think there are lines of thinking that if followed would lead the person away from God and their faith. Point two makes sense at first but it is a terrible way to look at Christianity. We cannot assume that the early church was right about everything. We cannot just stick to a dogmatic way of thinking. We have to continually pursue and questions our beliefs and match them up to what the Bible tells us.
Point three which specifically addresses institutions such as churches and even Christian colleges. I think that Cedarville can be a place where people feel forced to conform. There is a lot of pressure to believe exactly the same things as everyone so that we can be a uniformed place. I think this does cause a lot of people who wish not to be conformed to question their beliefs. But when people begin to question their beliefs they distant themselves from the rest of the group and this does cause some suspicion and even ostracism.
I think many Christians expect people to become saved then no longer question anything else. I think Christians fear that there is too much evidence against Christianity that when we begin to think or explore we realize that there is really no reason to pursue Christian beliefs. But I believe that without thinkers the Christian movement would never move forward. We need to question why we are here or why things happen. As long as our thoughts line up with the Bible.
I find it ironic that Christians fear philosophy and with it, the pursuit of “why”. After all, wasn't our Lord Jesus Christ know for questioning? Did he not frequently challenge the political-religious system and even the Septuagint itself? The man who debated the devil in the wilderness, spoke on a mountain top, and argued with church leaders also called us to emulate him.
I have seen firsthand Christians who refuse to question realities around them. Just ask almost any American Christian or Cedarvillian about pacifism, homosexuality, or the nature of civil rights and they will give a very predictable answer; one that likely includes religion as a warrant for their stance. This results in ostracization and an “us vs them” mentality for Christians who go against the grain on any of these issues. Yet depending on your perspective, can the Bible give you a very different ruling on these topics? I believe it can.
One of William’s points that particularly resonated with me was point number four. I do not think that there is not any evidence for the Christian faith, and therefore people should not think about what is rational about Christianity. But the last two sentences of that point say “Believing without such evidence seems akin to intellectual suicide. And such Christian thinkers just won’t do it”, and while I think intellectual suicide is too strong of a term for this point, I definitely fear trying to reason about the Christian faith. I am scared that if I begin to question then I will start to doubt. I don’t want to end up being someone who may fall away from Christ because of doubt.
To an extent, the third point does sound like Cedarville. I believe that people are encouraged to think to a certain degree about things at Cedarville, but only to a certain degree. I also do not think that very many people out rightly ostracize people here at Cedarville, but there are a few who might. However, you definitely might risk suspicion.
If we were free to think and not risk suspicion, people would not be questioned if they are saved because they voted for Obama. It may be only a few people who think that, but there are people on this campus who do. I know people have been. In summary, Cedarville does allow people to think, but only to a certain degree.
-Madison Pross 9:00
I completely agree that many frown upon the idea of Philosophy. Many think that it will cause people to stray from religion because of the high number atheists who participate in philosophy. Many aspects of Christianity do have tension between opposing views. For point number one I feel a bit torn. While yes you should always have faith in God instead of men or the world, it’s always important to keep in mind that we’re merely human. If a further consideration came to light, such as I discovered something biblical that changed the way I view religion or my relationship with Christ I would want to change. At the surface it may seem as though I was being unfaithful but in reality I would be demonstrating a stronger faith. Also, just because you think critically about your religion and question why you believe it, it doesn’t mean that you are turning away from it. In fact I think people who are of strong faith should do that. If you don’t your faith with never be your own.
Lining Cedarville and my home church up to point 3, I can definitely see the tension between these two points. My home church is and extremely conservative church with a congregation around 150. While I truly do love my church family there is many times where it’s really frustrating because of the expectation to conform to the group. There has been a time when I have asked adult in my church questions about a more liberal view to something and have been shut down. At Cedarville I think most people conform but not to an extreme degree. To be Honest I feel like most communities almost aim to conform.
Jessie Comeau 9 MWF
One of Williams’ points that I feel resonates with me is the idea of faith. There’s a lot I don’t know about philosophy, but I don’t think the exploration of it should be called “dangerous”. God gave us our creative, exploratory minds. He gave us the capability to search for truth, to think critically about ideas, and to search beyond what people just tell us.
I do realize that God has given us the freedom and capabilities to do many things, including a multitude of sins, so I’m not saying that everything He allows us to do is right. ...I just think that thinking critically about issues and searching for ideas is something we should do in order to enhance our faith. Yes, there could be dangers, but I believe that God can and will equip those who trust Him to stay true to their faith while exploring. I can see why people would be nervous about studying philosophical issues, because there are people who have left the faith because of what they found while searching. But God is incredibly powerful and wise and dependable that I know He can remind me of His truths if I were to question Him.
In response to (3), I guess there is some sort of “standard of conformity” to which many Christians hold. As briefly mentioned above, I need to constantly remind myself to not just accept what I’m told, but to be sure it’s accurate. Maybe there are less people who tend to think beyond the norm, and that’s why others may be suspicious of them...because they “aren’t like the ‘typical Christian’” who is like many other Christians. I appreciate hearing others’ views on things, because whether or not I agree, I can still think more open-mindedly about an issue and be exposed to a new idea.
I definitely agree with Dave D. about there being a place for intellectuals in the church. Yes, living by faith is part of being a Christian, and it is necessary for a relationship with God. However, we do need to do our best to evaluate what we are being taught to be sure it lines up with what the Bible says. Living by faith is a wonderful aspect of the Christian life, and I find peace and comfort a lot of times because I know I can trust God, but I constantly have to be sure that I don’t just use that as an excuse to not evaluate what I’m being told.
~Anna Z. MWF 9am
I feel that these views don't reflect most Christian views. I hope that people's view of faith is not that rigid. Being curious about what is around you isn't wishy-washy or wrong. Faith focuses on God, but we are the image of God and those around us must valued also.
True, Christianity is an orthodoxy, but imaginative people may add insight to the doctrines and traditions that may have lost their meaning over time. Conforming to the group doesn't mean you can't question, otherwise how does one learn? If the Christian group is being judgemental or disappoving in areas other than "sin", it is their loss, not the one seeking truth.
I haven't seen this at this university, but again, I wasn't looking for it. I don't believe thinkers are in dander of reprimand or shunning.
Yes, it is true that uneducated Christians leave a poor witness to the world, but we must love them and educate them as well as unbelievers. Our lives must be an example to everyone around us.
I pray that the battlefield of the saved and unsaved is replaced with the garden of people made in
God's image, to love one another.
Connie D. MWF 9am
Victoria P. and Andrew K., I would like to address (or rather expand on) your following comments:
"I think the if done in the right way, philosophy can definitely and should be done in a way that glorifies God and strengthens our faith." - VP
"To argue that the Christian might miss the creator by looking for him in his creation is ill-formed." - AK
I agree with both of these statements in so far as their result being correct. However I would like to raise the point that it seems (specifically referencing Victoria P.) we should focus on doing philosophy properly because this will glorify God, not focus on doing philosophy to glorify God properly. This subtle wording nuance makes the difference between either fulfilling or falling short of Bertrand Russell's description of philosophy. I say this because the latter implies entering the philosophical questions with the desire to prove a specific angle. We must enter the arena with as few filters and presuppositions as possible in order to arrive a proper unbiased conclusion. It seems therefore that we must be willing to set aside our beliefs.
This brings me to Andrew K.'s quote which I appreciate because it seems to be the Christian's hope in this situation. As we set aside our Christian worldview and preconceptions about deep abstract philosophical questions we can do so fully in confidence that if God created this reality, then understanding this reality is innately understanding God as the creator. If the Christian faith can withstand this rational analysis then we are in the right place. If not, many of us need to recognize the irrational (not necessarily a bad thing) basis of our faith and decide if this leap of faith off of logical grounding is one that we are willing to deliberately make. It could be a good leap to take, but the jumper should be deliberate, not passively unaware of its nature and reasoning.
-Grant M. 11:00
Within William's third point I think that not only are Christian circles and groups not free from conformity, but they are almost more susceptible to it. As also mentioned in William's comment, Christian's put a emphasis on how essential it is to conform to the ways of the church, due to centuries of threat. But does this emphasis on conformity keep the mind lacking critical thought?! With wishful thinking, we would all hope not, but it seems that the often narrow mind of the Christian institutions I have grown up in and been surrounded by lack the critical thought that philosophy brings to the table. I see why the search for knowledge to life's hardest questions could be considered a threat to any organized religion or people group, but isnt that what religion is here for? To help up answer life's tough questions?! When did religion become scared of tackling these questions and not embracing those with the minds to see it out?
In regards to point number three, while I think that some Christian institutions and churches are definitely guilty of conformity, I also think that Christianity as a whole implies a level of conformity. Conformity, when not taken to extremes, is not necessarily a bad thing. Without some degree of conformity in ideas and actions, then there would be no cohesiveness between the body of believers. That being said, if conformity is taken to the extreme, as it often can be, then it promotes an environment that stifles questioning, thinking outside the box, and searching for truth. This ostracizing of people who dare to ask questions, in my opinion, only serves to feed doubts that people may have. It’s almost as if believers are afraid that those asking questions and seeking truthful answers might find more proof that Christianity is wrong, than they will find for it. What does this say about the faith of the body? Instead of being assured in God, as the creator of our minds, our persons, and the rest of creation, doesn’t it speak to the fear that somehow the created things will point to something other than what we believe to be their Creator? I think that Christian institutions and churches need to be careful to not stifle thinking and asking questions, but rather, to promote them. That being said, I think they need to also be prepared with answers, or at least a willingness to dive into the “unknown” with those asking questions. It might be wisest to, rather than let the questioner ask questions alone, to ask them with and to them.
That being said, I think that Cedarville does a decent job of promoting thinking and pushing the students to ask questions. I think that Cedarville recognizes that without asking questions, one’s faith can never fully become your own faith, and it will not continue to grow until you recognize why you believe what you believe. However, I think that Cedarville does not just let loose of the reigns and say “have at it, ask whatever questions you have and come to your own conclusions by yourself.” I think that they place healthy boundaries around the students by being prepared with answers to questions, or at the very least other questions to spur the thinking on.
In response to Grant M. – while it may be that we must set aside our beliefs in the truth for the answer, and approach “the arena” without filters and presuppositions, do you think it is really possible? Is it possible to completely lay aside your presuppositions and biases, even when they have been ingrained in you, possibly to the point where you can’t even recognize all of them?
-Sarah L. MWF 9AM
I think that philosophy is a very valuable pursuit. Asking questions and seeking answers is essential to growing and taking hold of your faith. However, I think that philosophy should be approached with the same attitude of any other discipline: holding tightly to your worldview and searching for answers through that lens. The life without God at the center is one that never finds satisfactory answers to big life questions.
I think that balance is important. There is a balance between asking questions and constantly seeking new answers and blindly clinging to presupposed orthodoxy. There are certain things that we as Christians should accept by faith alone because we will probably not know the answer this side of heaven. However, there is a lot about our faith that should be carefully examined in order to give a reason for the faith that we have. I also believe that God delights in revealing things to us and giving us wisdom when we truly seek it. However, true wisdom cannot be sought outside of God.
-Nicole S. MWF 9:00
None of these tensions really resonate profoundly with me. Having grown up in a Marine Corp family philosophy wasn't something ever really discussed. The rule of the day was simply to follow orders without question and to obey authority within the boundaries of some mild ethics. Because of this upbringing it was not until a couple years ago that I really found myself engaging in any form of philosophy. Since doing so I have received mixed responses from members of the faith. My family, for example, expressed a great sense of pride in my search for truth. Even when it came to the point that I told them I was a pacifist my father, who had served in the Marine Corps for 24 years, told me that he was proud of me for searching out truth and not simply relying on what I have been taught from my youth. Several members of my church though had the opposite reaction and took my stand against violence to be the first steps towards apostasy.
From what I have observed and learned from discussions with other Christians it seems that what people most fear is that to truly "do" philosophy one must seek to be totally biased and suspend all previous believes or suppositions. Many Christians in an effort not to be biased overcompensate and play the skeptic of their own faith.
-Ian F. 9:00
Looking at point 3, I don’t think Cedarville does this at any extent that could cause any harm. I very much agree with Victoria in saying that, if anything, the community of the University encourages asking hard questions which lead to good thought. As far as unity within Christian communities, as has already been said, there is a certain degree of unity among the whole on the more necessary issues. Though “conformity” isn’t the word I would use; that definitely has negative connotations, and there is a big difference between unity and conformity. Conformity is a requirement that people subject their personal beliefs, views, etc. to that of the group and subsequently shun any digression from the norm. Unity (at least how it should be among Christian communities and how I feel it is here) is a group brought together by shared personal beliefs, and supports the diversity of understandings that can benefit the group as a whole by opening individuals up to lines of thought they may never have had in the past.
To go a little further into what Dee said, it is true that some professing Christians leave the faith because they are convinced otherwise, by philosophy or other means. In this case, I believe it is the person’s faith that was the problem, not the pursuit of philosophy. I agree with Nicole in that, as Christians, it is only reasonable and logical for us to view the world (including our philosophical questions) through a Christian lens. While many see this as dogmatic, I hold that it is actually logical, being that if we neglect our Biblical convictions for the sake of having “an open mind,” we are essentially putting that “open mind” form of reasoning (one that doesn’t allow itself to be influenced by Scripture or faith) in a position of importance and reliability above our regenerated, Christ-like minds that we now have. While we may adopt a “non-Christian” mindset for the sake of looking at a view from both sides, ultimately, we must judge whatever conclusions we come to by the faith we have. To do otherwise would be to put our faith in subjection to our own minds, which are susceptible to error and deception. So yes, I think that the case of “believers” renouncing their faith because of their philosophical pursuits is because they did not hold their faith in a higher regard than their own human reasoning.
Having read a good deal of the comments, I found that I had little inclination to engage in the variety of tangents that were presented. I think instead that talking about how I relate to each point in question would be more productive than endeavoring to capture in my unskilled hands the answer to the slippery question "what should a Christian philosopher look like?"
1. I tend to be on the second side of this one, the thinker side. I have to know answers to the many questions that come into my mind. I also do not agree that faith is limited to only God. There are a good deal of other things that are expressions of our faith. Unless of course he meant salvific faith, in which, yes, that is pretty much limited to God. But I think that there are a great deal of issues in life where we should take tentative stances. We do not know everything yet, so we should not act like we do. Even those things we believe to be true, we must always be ready to rethink carefully.
2. Again I favor number the second side of this. When I was growing up in a suburb of Atlanta, there was a loaded question that I was confused about well into my teen years. Could a black person marry a white person? The problem was that the people who were my teachers and principles were unwilling to tell me the truth about this issue because of the "orthodox" standpoint rooted in a very racist Southern tradition. Did they necessarily believe it? I do not know, but I do know they were unwilling to be open about questioning it. So for many years I had no idea what to believe. (To be clear, I believe that there is only one race, the human race, and that we all bear the image of God.) Anyways, the point is, "orthodoxy" scares me. Most of the ill I have suffered from "religious" men has been in the name of orthodoxy. Most of the good done to me by "religious" men has been by progressive individuals.
3. I am a nonconformist. I know the word "hipster" gets thrown around, but I am not trying to be cool about it. I just do not like following crowds. I get really suspicious of crowds. Last thing I want to be is a lemming. Plus, from my experience, the crowd is a dangerous place to be. It is easy to get lost in crowds. You can't hear your own voice or hear yourself think. I like working with groups. I like teamwork and synergy, but I think those are different from conformity. I am not, however, a rebel. I believe in divine authority and divinely established authority, but those are not modes of conformism. That is why I prefer nonconformist over "rebel" or "hipster."
4 & 5. I am on both sides of these. I think there are good points for each side, that there should be a balance.
6. I do not really get this one. Yes, there are saved and unsaved. What does that have to do with philosophy? That is like telling me there are apples and oranges, but steak is best cooked on a grill. Philosophy does not belong to the saved or the unsaved uniquely.
Micah Vaughan Walker - 11 AM
When Christians are solid in their faith and have a genuine relationship with God, they will typically not change their faith and pursue something else. When that bond is so strong, as all Christians should pursue to have, a bump in the road will stand strong. There will not always be all the answers, but that is why having faith in God is so crucial. Today, people put faith in many things (or people) which I find different than faith in God. Faith in things or people can easily be let down as you discover all the answers. You may have faith in your favorite sports team, but when the game is over and they lost, that faith has decreased. For this reason, I find both sides of this argument to be right. Faith should stand strong and not change when your faith is in God, however when it is put into things or people it often does change as you can see different things happen. This also goes with point number 4. When is comes to point 3, I believe that this is partially true for Cedarville. At Cedarville, students must be Christians to attend which I believe is good and allows everyone to have some common ground on their religion. However, I know many people at Cedarville who have varying beliefs on different issues and topics. In my experience, I have never felt like Cedarville was trying to control or alter what I believed. They have given me reasons to think and look into something more, but they have done without being harsh. Students, on the other hand, can be harsh at times. If someone speaks up about a particular belief that seems way off, some students might respond too harshly. Simply because it deals with colleges and conformity, point number 3 resonates with me the most.
Kara B. 9:00
I come from a family that is Pentecostal, which means our denomination has a lot of beliefs that are very different from the one's held by Cedarville University. However, when I was looking at the school, if anything I was excited at the prospect of coming here and being challenged. To be honest, I have learned a lot that has both helped shape my views but also help solidify some of the things I already believed before arriving at Cedarville. Stepping out of my comfort zone and asking the questions I needed to, some I had never even considered before... That was good. However, I had a number of people talk to me about becoming baptist. I'm serious. It was seen as me turning my back on everything I knew to be true. That may seem strange to some of my fellow classmates but to me, while I didn't agree with everything these caring people had to say, I understood their concern. These were the people who had found answers they were satisfied with and a life and faith they had committed to. They had passed it on to me and now I was daring to question those answers and that faith. I was making them uncomfortable! But while their answers were satisfactory for them, I wanted more. What is wrong with that? Why do we look at questions and see them as dangerous? Is it bad because it could suggest the person with the questions doesn't have enough faith or something? Or maybe it's that these people are scared they can't adequately defend their positions. I don't know, but I think being tested is a good thing. It helps us to better solidify our positions, to sift the wheat from the chaff and to come out pure on the other side. I want to hold ideas I've tested and can defend, not just say things I don't know are true but I've been taught to repeat. I wanted to be educated, not indoctrinated, and that's why I bother to ask the questions. While in truth, the answers on the other side may be the same, they will be the answers I have discovered for myself, the ones I understand and can defend, not just the regurgitated doctrinal statement of my church. How can we have a relationship with a God we don't bother to get to know. I guess that is what gets me the most. Example... I have a boyfriend who I've known for 7 years. We have talked almost every night for hours for 7 years and been dating for a year and a half. I plan to marry this guy and I would say I know him pretty well and definitely better than I did 7 years ago. Why? Because I talk to him. I ask him questions, I listen to him, I share things with him and get his reaction to my decisions. Sure, there are times he does things I still don't get. I don't always understand everything he says or where he is coming from. But the more I ask him to explain and the more I bother to care, the more I figure out about him. Why is God so different? Why is it people are scared when I'm willing to ask God a question? Is it because it's ... rude of me or something to presuppose God should bother to answer my questions? Why NOT?! He has asked me to be his bride, to spend eternity with him... why wouldn't he want to talk to me?
I'm sorry, I know I've ranted a bit here, it just bothers me that people see God this way. That he would be offended by questions or that we just shouldn't bother. Sometimes Cedarville can foster this kind of attitude. What I have seen most on campus though is worse. It's the kind of attitude that proclaims "I already know all of the answers. Why pray about it when you can learn it from me?" This is not an attitute solely held by faculty and professors, but also by students. Fortunately, those people are not God, and no matter how detailed their doctrinal statement may be, I still hold that I want Christ's opinion as well. So far doing some philosophy both in class and out has not led me to be an atheist or deny Christianity. It has led me to reevaluate myself. It has led me to question others. And it has led me to a lot of growth and spiritual insight I didn't have before. How can that be negative?
Williams brings up some thought-provoking points of discussion in his six points mentioned. Through the article I definitely noticed an interesting tension between the second and third points. Both points share some similarity, but also with an element of a twist.
The second point of interest discusses the constraints that can sometime be a point of contention in the theology of today. Being swamped in tradition and orthodoxy can certainly seem overwhelming which can induce the desire to change, however a change of thought process cannot come around to the extent that it endangers doctrine. While it is important to stay new and fresh, rooted in the same principle of doctrine is invaluable in the end.
This point also plays an interesting note of contention with the third topic discussed in the article. This section does seem to somewhat envelop the nature of some of Cedarville's campus and any group of individuals as a whole. The desire for conformity and being confirmed in your own thought processes is very prevalent in Cedarville's campus and other campuses. This conformity ties into the second point in the nature of similarity, but also differs in that it can involve being similar in topics that differ from standard ways of thinking and doctrine.
-Austin K. (11:00)
I will briefly address each point, and then introduce a counter-point of my own.
1) Faith is also not blind. It is based off of reason! If we are forced not to reason, how can we have reasonable faith?
2) To consider thinkers as "imaginative" is simply incorrect. Thinkers are concerned with reality, not making up their own! But, if Orthodoxy and Tradition contain flaws, they ought to be corrected--and only a thinker could accomplish such a task.
3) Most thinkers do not have any problem living among the rest of society. Having cohesiveness does not mean that every person in a group has to agree on every issue--even those who do very little thinking will have that problem anyway.
4) This issue will never be resolved, because it is always a debate versus people who don't think. And why would I waste my time arguing with people who don't think? After all, communication is based on reason.
5) Isn't the Bible a book? Don't most Christians read outside sources, whether philosophers or not?
6) So wait a minute--the divisive people who distrust thinkers are considered right in this argument? Doesn't scripture call for unity? I argue that non-thinkers are divisive because they apparently cannot think.
Counter-Point
Thinking is foundational to our Faith in Christ. Even people who claim not to be thinkers are truly thinkers--reading the Bible requires thinking, after all. If Philosophy strives to improve that thinking and reasoning, then Philosophy should be considered beneficial to the individual Christian and the Church overall.
Austin B. (11:00)
I found a constant feel of fear (from the writer) when reading this article. Is our belief blind? Ignorance may be bliss, but it can also mean death. If Christianity can not stand the tests of unbiased scrutiny, than it should be forfeited.
Is faith truly blind? Are we not, as Christians, to ask the hard questions about our beliefs? I think it is our DUTY as Christians to do so. In doing so, we prepare ourselves for when we fall under the scrutiny of others.
During Friday, the group I was in discussed the "dangers" of studying philosophy. I have came to the sad conclusion that those who study philosophy are in more danger because of the fact that questions are being asked. As I have stated above, we need to question what we do and why we do it to prepare ourselves for such happenings.
In answer to the last question couple of questions, no I do not think that Cedarville pushes us to conformity. Saying this, I need to make exceptions, such as the base rules of the college (drinking, ect.). Of course, we are all taught about the same things, and are tested on such things, but all of the teachers I have had so far have welcomed any questions about, or discussion of any disagreements about their what they are teaching. Unfortunately, I cannot speak for the student body. I would guess a good 80% of people give into peer pressure because they don't want to be the outcast. In saying this, we may face ostracism, but not from the institution itself, but from people around us.
Williams’ third point could not be truer about Cedarville. Being a transfer student and being in a college ministry for 2 years prior to coming here, I have different eyes on the situation than most people. There is absolutely conformity to a "Perfect Cedarville Student" in which it is not conformity to Christ. This conformity is devastating to our "Christian" community, due to the fact that we rally around a certain persona that we are so holy that no realness is needed, no talking about Christ outside of class and chapel is needed and that no agape love is needed to share with the very people around us.
If Christ was the very thing to conform to, we would allow people to be themselves and truly talk about Christ and it not sound corny or cheesy that someone gave a Jesus answer. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do and what we “preach”? If you have a different look or mindset, you are indefinitely ousted unless you find someone of the same characteristics.
We should be conforming but to the likeness of Christ, like the part when he ate with sinners and welcomed them. Here it feels like a hot bed of assumed perfection, while I walk around felling as a filthy rag with my tattoos and sin hovering over me. Praise the Lord that he is the one who forgives my sin and makes me white as snow and it is not based on a said perfection but only on Christ. So yes there should be an opening for thinkers because after all we need to “work out our salvation” and it should be in the constraints of the Bible but questioning such things is good, to get your mind outside of the bubble of the Christian thinking that you are used to, so that you are able to give light to questions from the “outsiders”.
-Anna P. (11:00)
I feel that most people want Christians to be all the same. It says in 1 Corinthians 12 that we each have a different function in the body of Christ. We all have the same core values because of what Jesus teaches and the Ten Commandments, but we all have different likes, dislikes, personalities, pretty much everything else about ourselves is different from one another. If we were all the same, then we would be like robots and there would be no uniqueness in the world. Part of our uniqueness can be used to reach different groups of people that don't know God.
I would like to first off state that I too have seen the fear and tension toward philosophy from the Church, or at least the older generation of the Church. I believe this common misconception, this fear that philosophy and thought will somehow override faith is reasonable, to an extent.
If all an individual uses is their mind to philosophize, then they run the risk of losing their faith. I look to Solomon as an example. He received wisdom from the Lord, but turned to his own knowledge and to the customs of his wives and concubines despite those practices direct violation of his faith in Jehovah. Instead, one must look at all information, all thought as a way to know God and to learn about God. He is the only true source of wisdom and truth. Those who turn from Him or run from Him do so when they decide to think and reason without regard for Him.
With that in mind, I look to the points made by Williams, and I must say that in many ways I agree with his thoughts. In fact, I see many ways in which the Imaginative Christian could function without experiencing intellectual death, without experiencing restriction. To point one, I say that God is always moving, always directing our paths. The key is to follow and seek after Him. In doing so, we will find an increase in knowledge and wisdom, as well as an opening of our eyes and minds to the world the Christ would have us to serve and see. To point to I would argue that the doctrines, the traditions the Church stands upon come from philosophers like Paul. Paul who knew the Old Testament, met Christ on the road to Damascus, and then proceeded to connect Christ to the old testament and to the prophets. He was able to institute the combination of Jew and Greek into the church, making salvation a message that could reach the world. To the third point, I agree that Cedarville institutes or forces a sense of conformity to their rules and to what they see as the Christian life. With dress codes, drinking regulations, smoking regulations, and other rules that are meant to protect Christians from the world, they in some ways hold the college students back from living life and making mistakes. While I am not arguing against these rules, I will note that Cedarville's recent plan to remove the Philosophy major may be another way in which the college is attempting to bring in the reigns and force conformity to a Christian lifestyle. They are asking students not to think, not to ask hard questions, and not to seek those answers because such would be unfaithful to God. Instead they should encourage the inquisitive mind while the students are at school and in a Christian environment, not out in the world where they won't have positive influences and answers to their questions. The last three points hold validity like the first three, showing that the Christian Church has some fear and flaw to it. Faith to those who have it is reasonable, as many Christians would note due to their feeling or seeing of the miracles of Christ in their life. Love of God can be shown through searching out the truth about God and about his creation. And Finally, there shouldn't be such a separation between the Sinners and the Saints, Christ dined with them and so should we. Judgement should not be cast on sinners, just as judgement should not be cast on saints who seek answers in philosophy, which some see as a sinners trade.
As the end of the day, I feel that philosophy is good for the Christian and for the Church as a whole. It helped found the church and can help to grow it.
The points of Williams that most resonate with me are: Christianity is an orthodoxy, the one with Christian colleges and the them vs. us mentality. I come from a church that is very old fashioned and hold very much to tradition because that is the way it has always been. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with Orthodoxy or knowing church history, but when it cannot be changed simply because “it’s how we’ve always done it,” there are big problems. Belief in tradition can actually be the biggest crippling tool to the church. If you think any differently than it has always been done, then you are automatically wrong. What is worse about this is that I have seen this play out in a church to wear they do not care if what you say is actually Biblical. If it’s different than tradition, you are the one in the wrong. Thinking differently, and sometimes thinking at all, is not allowed in many churches and it can even be looked down upon in any Christian circle. It is part of the “us and them” mentality that cripples so many people in Christian circles. An example of this that could be seen at Cedarville is political affiliation. If you are a democrat, you are automatically seen as being wrong on every political matter. Somehow being a republican make you more Christian. I do not agree with most of the democratic policies that I know of, but that does not mean that they never have any good policies. It’s almost like we are not allowed to think through political matters, or if we are allowed to, we are not allowed to come up with a different answer than that of the Republican Party. If you do, you are looked down on and sometimes shunned from the Christian community. This is just one example of how thinking can be limited in Christian circles, but there are plenty more.
-Hannah H. 9:00
Personally, I can understand where this is coming from. People are concerned when other believers, especially those whom they are close with dabble in fields that have a certain threat level. Now, I do think there is reason to be concerned for each other as the Body of Christ. But we should be concerned in a way in which we can build each other up. Frankly, I don't think Jesus ever said anything about our faith being easy. I see time and time again where Jesus says that there will be persecution. He has also said that in this life you will have many trials. In that regard shouldn't we see that there are difficulties in every circumstance. Just because a certain discipline might be more atheistic, should we throw out the field entirely and say it's not worth it because it's hard. Certainly not. Life is not easy. If we did say that we should avoid hard things, there are so many fields of study that Christians should stay out of. But Christ said we were in this world, we should be part of it but not conformed to its thinking. Jesus makes it pretty clear to me that we should be involved in searching for answers even in the bleakest fields of study.
Now on to the matter presented in statement 3.Quite honestly, I do think there is a group mentality here at Cedarville. In many ways, we are taught how to think in very specific ways. We are not taught the things that other schools, especially in a secular college, are taught. Now the question remains, is that okay? Is it okay to be hive minded? Is there any room for individuals who don't have the same colors, so to speak, as the rest of the school? Again, I would say yes, this is okay. We should have an open environment to people who claim to not have all the answers. Honestly, there is no one at CU who does. We are all searching. Does it shock us when one from the inside professes that they are having a crisis of Faith. Certainly. But do we ostracize them because they are different? I think we can, but I haven't seen that too often. I would say we are very open here at CU when it comes to different thoughts and ideas. Can this environment be harmful for someone looking for truth, I would say it depends on where they are searching.
-Matt Jackson
In Williams’ discussion he refers to “thinkers” as quixotic and un-tethered to long-held beliefs and traditional ideas while “Christians” are forced into a dogmatic intellect and unanimous conformity. This may be an accurate description of some, particularly those of traditional rational, but it does not hold true for a wide range of people, particularly scholars. Christians should be grounded in long-standing biblical truths but should also be imaginative and creative, applying what they believe to new situations, confronting those of unstable moral backgrounds, challenging and defending their faith in the face of postmodern influences. Christians should know that faith is based in knowledge, not a substitute for it. Faith spawns from proof of the Christian’s relationship with God. Loving God is central to the Christian’s life therefore we should study other’s experiences and learn from their challenges so we may understand God better. We should also be using our gifts and talents for the work of the Lord, however that may be, definitely not burying them.
Point 6 seems to be the most obtuse, claiming an exaggerated division between saved and unsaved. Only God knows who is truly saved or not. It is no place of ours to make such divisions. Furthermore, it is blasphemous to suggest we should treat anyone differently based on our assumptions of who is saved and who is not.
-Ivan Priest
Regarding conforming under social pressures, I would agree that this happens regularly in every group yet to an extent. To say that this is Cedarville, I wouldn't go that far. Following the crowd or going with the grain definitely is present, but I know that there are many people who are wrestling with hard questions and, undoubtedly, their faith. Many of these individuals will be looked down upon and possibly ostracized by deviating intellectually, but I think it healthy and commendable for thinking through hard questions and working out one's faith. In approaching this tension, the proper response may be one of humility and willingness to listen to a individual who has questions and to look differently upon them because they bring a different perspective. Even though this tension has the potential to turn into a breeding ground of disunity, it doesn't have to. In all, I believe we need put on humility and accept that we don't have all the answers, and that there are questions we may never solve. Thinking through them and stretching ourselves is healthy, yet we must be wise to the pull or pressure of conformity, comfortableness, and complacency.
-Isaac M. 11:00
Through out the quotes given from Williams'book, I have had a couple concerns reading through His points. I agree with his first point that faith is stable and enduring and that it does not change (or should not change) but what frustrates me is that 'thinkers' have to be opposite. I think there is a lot of room for those who are thinkers and have faith. and since Williams' already preconceives through his writing that they have to be opposite puts a foundation for his points that we can't continue reading without noticing. His next point about religion scares me a little, He talks of the orthodoxy and the long-established doctrines, which, yes, are true in Christianity. However, all that really is are our forefathers who have done some of the work for us already. If coming up with our own doctrines (based on the Bible) they should be extremely similar, anyway. With that said, we need to realize that any one person coming into the field of philosophy must recognize that they are coming in with preset foundations and preconceived notions. One cannot simply grow up through life without coming to conclusions about the world around them, and therefore pointing out the negative side of Christian notion, seems one sided without giving way to all others. I do think that when Christians are to come into Philosophy it might sound 'unimaginative' if one is not willing to change their beliefs on the ideals found by looking at matters from a different angle. But one must consider, how many times throughout the Bible it mentions that the ways of man are wicked, or that God's thoughts are not man's thoughts. With that said a true Christian must hold the Bible first and foremost before philosophy.
For point number 3, I do think that Cedarville is not immune to the pressures to conform. I believe this especially because the generation of yesterday is the majority of income and funds to education the generation of tomorrow. Throughout all of history I believe that there is a pattern of change throughout social and spiritual concerns. In one generation it might be music, where the next generation is concerned about philosophy, and one generation is concerned about abortion where the other is concerned about homosexuality. There's a generation concerned about pushing discipleship (one on one) and another generation more focused on evangelistic ministry. With all this said, I believe that because there is always a bandwagon to jump on to. And this is where conformity hits hard. At Cedarville, it feels like you always have to be on a side, you have to be protesting something or promoting something else. But never can you just follow God. With that said, Conforming to certain standards and avoiding public disapproval in the eyes of 'older Christians' has become more of a driving force than following God. We are to please those who support the school rather than make decisions that follow Christ and allow Him to provide. At least that is the way it seems most of the time. However Williams point about imaginative person not being bound by the pressure to conform, I believe is not true. I believe that they are just conforming to other means, rather than Christian ones.
I agree with the next point saying that 'many Christians think faith goes beyond reason.' But I would go as far to say that faith would never contradict reason. (depending on your definition of reason, of course.) Reason can only truly be defined by where it originated from. Science evidence never contradicts Scripture (scientific interpretations might, but those are all theories). Just as well, evidence in every area never contradict Scriptures. If our own interpretations contradict Scripture than it is ourselves that must change.
For WIlliams' last point, I want to say that everything is a worship to God and whether that is in a very person oriented job or in a library with books, it can still and will still honor God when brought out to do so.
T McMillan 09:00 Well there is good reason to do good philosophy. It give us the chance to really think about what we really believe. That is do we really believe that God exist and that there can really be good in the world without strings attach to them,are we just looking out for ourselves.are we just thinking of how can I get a head of the next person.Philosophy is more than just thinking about us it's thinking about how we fit into our society and what we can do to make it work better for all of us.I like Dave D 1100 said that we need to be looking out for false teachers because they will lead us astray, and philosophy causes us to ask the right question from our pastors and from the elders of the church and our society. I think that why there are so many debates when it come to an election in this country.Though philosophy we can discern the truth about a candidate to see if he or she is worthy to serve us as a hole.I like the definitions of philosophy we got in class which states that we do philosophy to fine the truth what ever that truth might be. The paper we were to read by Leftow was interesting. It said that even though we do not see God we can believe he exist. Leftow argue that this point between a chair and God.He said if there reason for something then there should be reason against something, that is if I got the argument right.In this way we can argue for God because there are people who will argue against God.Though philosophy we can know that we know what we believe to be true.
(1) True faith is stable in its pursuit of God, but it also is chasing God intellectually so that that faith might be strengthened. According to 1 Peter 3:15 we must “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” But how can we do this if we have never truly explored or understood why we do have hope?
(2) Humans are fallible. Why would the doctrine of our Church be different? And if our doctrine is incorrect why would anyone want to live in disobedience to God? Thus we must confirm that the way in which we live out our faith is in accordance to God’s will.
(3) All social structures have a built in herd mentality; Cedarville is no different. However, as much as many people believe that Cedarville is ultra conservative if you sit back and look at how people interact and the content of their speech Cedarville is very influenced by popular culture. Seeing as we need to be renewed by the transforming of our minds and out of the heart the mouth speaks this is in my opinion is a failure of Cedarville’s culture because we are not representing Christ in word or deed. If Cedarville was coercive in their expectations of students then even those who were not convicted of such un-Christ-like behavior would perform due to expectations.
(4) While faith is believing without seeing, we have a rational God who has given all humans, at minimum, general revelation and to us he has bestowed saving revelation. God has given us assurance, why should we not grasp that blessing? One of my best friends that I have made at Cedarville I love because she has opinions on EVERYTHING, but she also has REASONS for ALL of her opinions. And they are not, while my church said such and such; they are well founded thoroughly thought out opinions that challenge me and what I believe.
(5) Books are not the antithesis of Christianity, they are what strengthen our resolve, challenge our beliefs, and enlighten our minds. God gave us creation, why would he NOT want us to go and discover it and its mysteries? And as several of my fellow posters stated: the Bible is a book, are we not supposed to hide its words in our hearts so that we don’t sin against God? How are we to do that if we DON’T read it?
(6) This last point is preposterous! It is saying that we must hide our light under a bushel and not go where God has called us to! Would these same people discourage a missionary going to a remote unsaved tribal group as well? If God has given you a talent He did so for a reason! Use it!
The point that started the most thought for me was point one. I’ve had many people give me this same description of faith and really it just makes me angry. Point one contrasts “childlike faith” with the questioning of the philosophical, with the intention of drawing on the seeming tension between the two ideas. I think the tension can be solved in a better explanation of faith. The faith spoken of in the first point is too simplistic and it’s a faith that won’t stand under the weight of any tragedy or loss. The thing is I don’t think the Bible advocates for this faith and I wouldn’t either. The Bible is full of people who question, like Timothy who had to see the holes in Jesus’s hands and feet before he believed or the in the Psalms when the Psalmists repeatedly cry out where are you God?. In life we need something much more hardy to stand under when trials come because trials are bound to come.
Personally I would be afraid of anything that didn’t tolerate questioning. When someone tells you not to question something it is usually because of hidden motives. I’m in a season when I am questioning God about everything and when people ask me why I am asking so many questions of God I just want to ask them, “Do you think God’s not big enough for them?” because really I think he is. If He’s not worth it then I will find out and if he’s worth it then my faith will forever be strengthened.
So to the seeming tension created between faith and philosophy I say that faith should be redefined to include questioning and searching.
-Taylor C. 9:00
For the majority of my Christian life I had not questioned my faith or certain beliefs that were held by others church. In recent years, however, this has changed. Due to some of the classes in the Bible minor and the different views of professors I began to start questioning if my faith was sound. If what I had believed over the last nine or ten years was built on a solid foundation, the Bible, or if it was based on sunday school teachers and preachers. Through this I have found that, as it's stated in (1) faith is unchangeable even when certain aspects of that faith are brought into question--if it is a genuine faith. I have also found myself asking more "what if?" questions as (2) mentions. Asking "what if?" and "why?" cause you to wrestle with what you believe and I think I am better for it. I'm not quite sure how I feel about (4). On one hand faith is a step into the unknown, but is that step void of reason? Is it not based on previous experience? God says He will show you the next step and He has done so before. Wouldn't it then be reasonable to expect that God will show you the next step even if it is into what you deem "unknown"?
When it comes to (3) Cedarville University is, for the most part, a institution that is the breeding ground for conformity. There are certain requirements to being accepted to Cedarville and therefore those that attend have these things in common. Those who do not conform to the community of Cedarville can be ostracized. I'm not sure how common that is but there is the potential for it at least. I agree with what TJ said about the unfortunateness of certain litmus tests used to discern a person to be a Christian. Most of the time these litmus tests are not even legitimate. Most of the time thinkers are only welcomed when they prove what we already believe. Cedarville does seem to do its best to promote thinking critically but how frequent is the follow through on part of those who make up the community of Cedarville?
I don't know as I agree with TJ said about reason. Why would it be inappropriate to attempt to understand a world that an infinite God created with our finite reason? If, as Romans 1 says, God has revealed Himself in His creation would it not be appropriate to attempt to understand what God has made plain through His creation? Wouldn't it be reasonable then to attempt to understand God even if we can't ever fully know or understand Him with our finite minds?
-Tim Hull (9:00)
I agree with the point that as a whole the Church has made an indirect effort to sink itself into an established orthodoxy that has bred little creative thinking in regards to expanding what it is we think we know of scripture. To discuss an opinion varying to a normally accepted view of a particular scriptural doctrine is to leave ones self vulnerable to ostracization. In a way it is true that we have even seen this recently happen at Cedarville. Without mentioning specific instances it seems as if we have an abnormally higher turnover rate for professors in the bible department than in any other at the University. I cannot think of any reason other than the one mentioned why this would be the case. It is a minority of cases to be sure but there has been a little friction from a few people within my group of friends here on campus when I have discussed taking a course in philosophy. This is something which I have not been accustomed to seeing with any other class I have taken.
-Nick D. 9:00
I agree with the point that as a whole the Church has made an indirect effort to sink itself into an established orthodoxy that has bred little creative thinking in regards to expanding what it is we think we know of scripture. To discuss an opinion varying to a normally accepted view of a particular scriptural doctrine is to leave ones self vulnerable to ostracization. In a way it is true that we have even seen this recently happen at Cedarville. Without mentioning specific instances it seems as if we have an abnormally higher turnover rate for professors in the bible department than in any other at the University. I cannot think of any reason other than the one mentioned why this would be the case. It is a minority of cases to be sure but there has been a little friction from a few people within my group of friends here on campus when I have discussed taking a course in philosophy. This is something which I have not been accustomed to seeing with any other class I have taken.
-Nick D. 9:00
3) I know individuals who believe that thinkers at Cedarville do risk being under suspicion and ostracism. I thank that at times it is necessary. Our doctrinal statement is very clear on the truths we hold. If someone, anyone, professor, student or administrator, were to take the stance of an view that opposed what we stood for in this community, then it would be acceptable to appropriately discuss the issue. I don’t see that a person, regardless of their education or denomination, should be above the truths that we hold dear. On the other side, there are those that have ideas in line with CU’s beliefs, but are questioned when it appears to be a misunderstanding. It would be both naive and prideful the view ones self above such accountability.
Andrew…I like what you said “an omnipotent creator God is not intimidated by the intellectual pursuits of His creations”…Why then, I wonder, are other believers intimidated by the intellectual pursuit of their fellow brothers/sisters in Christ? Is it because they have doubts themselves and are worried that thinking through them will cause them to turn from God? Seems we spend more time worrying about it then the Almighty probably does.
-JT B.(11:00)
To the fifth point, did not Adam and Eve have the command to take care of the garden? If it were true that loving God was the only thing that mattered to the exclusion of creaturely things as is suggested, then would not their command from God to tend to the garden detract from their ability to love God and by that very definition, be something God would never command them to do? As far as the idea that books keep us from interacting with others, books are often the preserved conversation items (ideas, questions, knowledge, etc.) from a point in the past. Observing a book may be just as conversational as a face to face interaction at times. Especially if we include digital media as 'interaction', an argument could be made that written medium (books) are just as beneficial if not more than media interaction.
Tackling the third point,it seems there are two important types of structure that occur we must observe. First you have permanent, unyielding structure. Gravity, for example, is a permanent and restricting structure that we all must learn to work within the parameters of. The Second type are semi-flexible structures, such as speed limits or food servings. You can work within these structures, but there is room to also work on the edge of them as well. It appears that Cedarville mixes these structures well, while still allowing for one to practice philosophy that is both enriching and enlightening. The pursuit of philosophy, when questions asked are not unaskable and the conclusions reached not acted upon until one is certain they are the best set of answers is easily fostered under the community covenant. Obviously, every system has its own unique drawbacks, but Cedarville does not necessarily limit philosophical thought.
Point #5 questions whether man's pursuit of finding out more about God through books is important. The way I see it, the Bible is our love letter penned by God Himself. Diving into commentaries in order to understand exactly what is being stated in the Bible could be extremely valuable to understanding the magnitude of God's love for us. As long as the focus is on Christ, books can allow "iron to sharpen iron".
Romans 12:2 calls us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind. While it is possible that a book may hinder one socially, it also has the ability to open our eyes to view God in a different light. The more we know about God, the more we talk about Him. So, in my mind, I feel like a book can lead to a renewal of the mind, transforming one to further express Christ and His love for us.
G.T. Davis (9:00)
Williams' third point resonates with me as a church-going student at a Christian university who graduated from a Christian high school. Obviously it is important for Christian institutions to hold fast to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and it would be wrong to give up those beliefs in the spirit of free-thinking. However it is also important to have an environment where critical thinking is allowed and encouraged. I understand what Williams had to say about the pressure to conform in a Christian environment, but it is important to remember that this conformity should not be into each others' likenesses, but into the likeness of Christ. The goal should never be for those in the body of Christ to look exactly like each other, but to strive every day to look more like Christ.
It seems to me that for as long as I've been here, Cedarville has done a good job of not being an institution that expects complete conformity. I have had professors with many different views on life and politics and as students we are often encouraged to think critically and explore our views for ourselves. I hope that Cedarville continues to be this kind of institution for years to come.
Shelby F. 11:00
Philosophy as the search for truth should bring us closer to Christianity and not further from it, however if we are to believe that faith is completely blind-that is to say without question-then philosophy would bring us away from Christianity as a symptom of doubt. Just like Dave D. states in the previous comment, we are to evaluate the church to see for ourselves if teachings are in line with Gods word, and for this reason it is best if we have knowledge of philosophy that we may further evaluate the validity of the teachers.
In response to point number 4:
I have a little bit to add to this point.
I have not been a Christian for most of my life, being saved only about a year ago. I did not believe in God for the longest time because I could not logically make it work in my mind. However, I did not believe in macroevolution either, because there is too much evidence that stands against that in my mind. My point being that even at my furthest point from God, I was essentially agnostic. I just did not know what to really believe and wrestled with this issue for a long time. One of the reasons why I eventually decided that God was indeed real was because I finally saw Him at work. I saw things that could not be explained without the existence of a God.
Let me get back on subject here. I heard a sermon by a man once who visited my home church. His specialty was looking at the Bible through the scope of science. He thoroughly went through a plethora of reasons as to why macroevolution could fully explain how humans came to be. We looked at everything from timeline flaws to lack of transitional fossils. He even showed us a quote by Charles Darwin that stated how if tons of transitional fossils cannot be found, his own theory would be completely crippled. I do not remember the exact quote and I have not yet done more research into this but if what I was told was accurate, macroevolution is NOT logical. In fact, in my opinion, an active and almighty God in existence is the only logical explanation. I suppose that means that I do not agree with this point because anything but God is illogical.
I completely agree that the majority of Christians need to develop their own thoughts and beliefs to discover and back up what the Bible and church teaches, because left on their own, they won't be able to withstand this rational scrutiny that the world, or even atheists, pose against them. Everyone wants proof for what they believe, and the necessity of "faith" doesn't seem like enough to fill these areas that are left unanswered. Faith is a necessity, yes, but Christians should still be able to protect their beliefs without the recourse of the Bible, but be able to think deeply about philosophy through logic and reason.
-Deb (9AM)
Faith, of course is enduring and because it is enduring then studying something like philosophy should not alter faith. We should always be thinking from new perspectives even if we don't always agree. Intellectuals are not inherently evil.God gives us knowledge and gifts and it is how we choose to use them that determines our character. Cedarville certainly has pressures to conform to a certain ideology but at the same time it allows for a mix of opinions and thinking.
-Alyssa C. (9:00)
I feel like philosophy is a study that is just naturally associated with atheists, in the same way that promiscuous women are associated with provocative clothing. With that being said it does not necessarily ensue that every philosopher is an atheist, just as every women who dresses in a provocative manner is not promiscuous. However, most Christians do not like to slip their faith into a grey area, where everything they know may be questioned without a convincing or certain answer. Point number four discusses the idea that faith goes beyond reason. For most Christians, they are content with simply believing the ideals of Christianity, without understanding why they may have reason for believing these things. I feel that Philosophy or any study of this nature should encourage a Christian to strengthen his or her faith as opposed to smolder it. The truth is, in philosophy, we as avid participants are more concerned with the questions being posed, than with the answers being given. Many philosophers believe that there are never any definite answers given in philosophy. But asking questions may give you a better understanding as to the nature of the question and may (through research) give you evidence for the answer you believe. To some extent, I believe that if your faith is strong enough, you should not be threatened by the difficult questions that are asked by its opposers. Ultimately, as Christians we should understand that the bible alone answers all of our questions. As Christians, we should know that if the bible states that "God is good", then this is absolutely truthful, regardless of what the world might throw against it. And with this in mind, we can be open to many of the questions that philosophy asks. We must look past the people that are most highly associated with philosophy, and rather, look at how philosophy can benefit and strengthen our personal faith. As far as Williams’s commentary on Christian colleges, I believe that Cedarville does a very good job at keeping our eyes open to the reality of our culture, and its worldviews. However, I think that there are also many students at Cedarville, who in some sense will leave, being unprepared for the real world. For many students, all they have ever known is the Christian worldview. So they are not open to any other opinions or views. Because of this, I feel that some of the students at Cedarville will be held up for scrutiny because of their shallow and extremely biased opinions of the world. On the other hand, many students will leave Cedarville understanding their worldview in a more comprehensive manner, as well as being able to understand and defend against the worldviews that oppose it.
Johnna Vanstrom
Within this post, Williams poses some differences, seemingly irreconcilable, between Christianity and the world of the "thinker." The first point that Williams points out is that faith is "stable and enduring." While this is true and should be a characteristic of faith, it fails to recognize how the person came to arrive at that faith in the first place. I would like to suggest that Christians view the world of the thinker, and consequently philosophy, as dangerous because it is simply harder to address than the alternative. How much easier is it to tell a child to "just believe" than really have them think through their faith? Paul advises his brothers in Philippians 2:12 to continue to "work out their faith in fear and trembling." This conveys that there is a. something to work through and b. something hard, hence the fear and trembling. By choosing to give us the so called easier answer, the church has unintentionally caused this new generation to be suspicious of this world of thinking. Also, because we were never taught how to rationally reason through our faith, we will probably believe the first worldview that offers us reasonable logic behind their viewpoint. Overall, I believe that it is good to study philosophy, and in fact advised in Scripture. The only thing that we may have to guard against is previous antagonistic beliefs towards philosophy imposed on us by past generations of Christians who chose to simply conform and not actually figure out why they believe what they believe.
Point three states that conformity leads to orthodoxy, and thinkers will not thrive in such an environment. But that doesn’t really seem like the case most times. If we think about the spread of Christianity, our faith remained a small minority of the Roman Empire until Constantine a couple hundred years later. And most of that time, they were pressured to conform many times to the point of death. And through the pressure to conform, Christians critically thought through what they believed and what separated them from other religions especially Judaism. And today believers in Asia or predominately Muslim areas are harassed and disowned for following Christ, but they still do it. This may not seem like the most rational of decisions, but I assume many of these people have critically thought through their decisions and do understand what they are doing.
And specifically here at Cedarville, I don’t really feel pressured to conform to how others think. In fact I do feel encouraged to ask questions and engage critically with what I learn in my classes and chapels.
- Aaron R. 11.00
I think that if philosophy can be roughly defined as the search for ultimate truth in every aspect of life, and Christians know that what they believe is true, then they should not be afraid of philosophy. For if I delve into reason and questioning the world then all answers should lead back towards the truth. I think that most Christians and shown in this post don't fully understand what philosophy is.
I have heard it said that blind faith is stupid faith and this is true because if we believe in something and don't know why then someone who knows why they believe what they believe could easily sway you. If we believe the first thing that we hear and just run with it we could have been listening to a lunatic and never thought twice about it. Philosophy helps guard against this and most Christians don't realize that.
-Kyle Classen (9:00)
So...since I think I'm pretty much the last one here...to summarize broadly what has been said...
1. We all seem to more or less agree that the "faith" according to Mr. Williams is not the best kind of faith to have. Questions and Reasoning are essential in the Christian life in order to grow and flourish and interact with everyone. "Thinking" should include all Christians and all churches. Thus the "Christian Orthodoxy" should not be blindly accepted, but thoroughly investigated in order to know if what we believe is true. In short, the "thinking" Christian is the Responsible Christian.
2. It seems that Cedarville is an environment that encourages thinking and questioning one's faith. However, suspicion and ostracizing are present to some degree in various people.
3. Books are good.
4. Imagination and inquisitiveness are not hindrances in the Christian walk. It is, in fact, utterly rational to believe in God, and it is God's purpose for us to be imaginative and inquisitive in order to know Him more.
I don't really have much to add at this point. So I'll expound upon Williams point number 4, that faith goes beyond reason, just because I'm prepared to answer that best.
Briefly, all faith stems from some sort of reason. Consider Acts 26:25. "I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable." Everyone has a reason for believing what they do. Thus, the statement that "faith goes beyond reason" doesn't really make sense, because one would still have a reason for having a faith beyond reason.
"...always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you..." (1 Peter 3:15)
As for 3) I do agree with Williams that many Christians seem to understand faithfulness to reveal itself in the outward action of individuals. I agree. However, this can not simply be conformity. Conformity is not obedience. God doesn't call us to conform our ways to His ways. We hear this at Cedarville all the time, which I believe is a good thing. God's Truth is evident everywhere and we know that He is real. His love is the primary if not one and only true motivation to obey God. Individuals who simply conform and have not considered their faith for themselves are slaves to their own hidden motivations. God desires our hearts. I believe individuals must not simply conform but consider why they seek to serve God, or not.
As for 4) those who think that rationality doesn't support Christianity and that faith is based on an experience with the living God fail to take into account the importance of their minds. If they rely on an experience, who knows which "god" they are experiencing.
-Andrew S. 1100
These Comments Derived Consensus?
: Philosophy is good.
I do think it's important to keep your faith first above philosophy. I agree with Jordan's statement when he said, "I find it ironic that Christians fear philosophy and with it, the pursuit of “why”. After all, wasn't our Lord Jesus Christ know for questioning?" This is true because Jesus did ask questions. The difference between philosophy and faith is , philosophy is a discipline which deals with life, metaphysics, knowledge, and the ultimate truth. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, according to Hebrews 11:1. The 2 may cross paths but philosophy should never surpass faith.
- Dante Williamson
I believe that Christians can be thinkers and were given the ability to think and imagine as a gift from God. We are to honor that gift and investigate the hard life questions that come at us as people of faith. Asking questions don't have to shake our faith and cause us to drift away from the answers and support the Bible provides for us. Instead, we should strive for the most biblically sound answers to these difficult questions, and accept that some questions and parts of philosophy cannot be answered by the Bible. But that is not a reason to doubt our faith or search for more tangible answers. Holding on to hope is something that philosophy probably rarely offers, which is why believers may struggle to support those Christians who want to spend their lives and time dissecting potentially faith-shaking questions. I believe they are left unanswered because God desires our full faith and desire to trust him fully.
Ashtyn B.
in response to "Sarah L. MWF 9AM"
- Sarah you raise my reoccurring question. It seems to me that regardless of whether or not the complete elimination of bias is likely to occur we should strive to get as close as we can. Like a hermeneutical spiral...
(http://people.dsv.su.se/~evafaahr/lic/lic02.gif)
...it will take a long time to reach the central truth of the matter- it is more of a journey toward proper understanding than the simple acquisition of an objective fact.
If my perspective on that is correct it seems to give mandate for us as adults to begin breaking away from preconceptions and ingrained nature. A more challenging dilemma seems to be the question of how to balance good training with maintenance of free will/fully deliberate philosophy in the minds of our children. Biblical training can seem like indoctrination which, while potentially "truth", could get them to that correct conclusion by philosophically invalid means.
In response to Ashtyn B. and Dante Williamson
What is this unsurpassable faith based on? Surely some form of philosophy (whether done correctly or weakly established on presuppositions) must in some way serve as the foundation for your faith. Faith at some point may deserve to stand alone, but we are fooling ourselves (I believe) if we don't allow good philosophy to form a proper deliberate and conscious foundation of reasoning for WHY we step out in faith.
- Grant M. 11:00am
Point 1, 3, and 6 resonate with me on a very deep, personal level. First of all, and most of all, is point 6. My perspective and heart for “they” who are lost has grown greater and greater through my life experiences in ministry and relationships. Too often I have seen my family and friends scowl in judgment towards non-believers with a mind. Whether its biology or politics, I have had a variety of opportunities to overhear ignorant conversation about intellectuals being damned to hell. Even if it’s not admitted aloud due to the sound of its folly, the trend of believing that wanderers are not followers is one that has always plagued the minds of Christian believers. Unfortunately, this fear of intellect is most often a lack of fear in God. The study of philosophy or any science should increase the presence and greatness of God; these routes of understanding were created by him and for him.
I do believe that thinkers are outcast in certain groups at Cedarville. I believe this to be true because of the dominance in conservatism that doesn't handle the “thinking type” well. Cedarville as a whole does not attract philosophical students. I believe that several of the most popular majors at Cedarville are more on the technical side than on the philosophical side. With this being said, philosophical students tend to be the odd ones out.
-Kayleigh Wideman (9am)
Post a Comment