Logic is a buzz word in religion, especially in conservative circles. We of the church in general, but within the conservative movement in particular, carry the impression that logic is somehow opposed to Christianity or, Christianity is opposed to logic. We read verses like "lean not on your own understanding." And "The wisdom of God is foolishness to man." And we decide that God is opposed to logic and intellect. But, I offer, such could not be farther from the truth.

When we say these things, more often than not what we really mean (though few know this,) is that God is opposed to intellectualism and he is opposed to using logic to confuse and confound the faithful. There is a good reason for this healthy fear though. By 1900 or so, most of the institutions of higher education in this country had become hotbeds of liberal and generally anti-Christian sentiment. Even our seminaries and schools of divinity had begun to embrace a Jesus that was neither real, holy nor effective. They had been buoyed by Darwinism, feeling it gave license to offer naturalistic explanations for our existence. They had also wrapped themselves around a fairly new idea called textual criticism.

This new field in Biblical studies looked at the Bible not as sacred tome, but secular text. It asked the questions of internal coherence, historicity and literary style. Sad to say, textual criticism was mostly aimed at disproving the validity of Scripture rather than bolstering the flock. It ultimately failed to do so, but it left a bitter taste in the mouth of the faithful.

The more conservative elements of the church reacted to all these things by beginning the fundamentalist movement. Not a bad idea really, but as the movement aged, it forgot its roots and began to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. They began to complain that higher education itself was bad. They started adding new warnings about being smart and educated to Jesus' warnings about the difficulties in being wealthy. They began to confuse intellect with intellectualism, and they began to confuse logic (textual criticism being largely based on logic) with disproving the things of God.

These simple historical facts stand in concert with another much older phenomenon as well, what I will tentatively call our brainwashing by western modernism.

By this, I mean the attempted systematic separation of religion and science since the dawn of enlightenment philosophy in the west (1450 AD or so.) The message, be it overt or subliminal, is at least consistent: Science and religion don't mix. One could easily substitute logic and faith, or fact and opinion. While this predates the liberalization of America's religious institutions (a trend that has not, incidentally continued,) one could, and should I think, consider how this antecedent philosophy helped to drive such institutional changes in the west. It's a fascinating and well embedded philosophy.

Most people are not aware of it, but science, religion and philosophy were not separate fields though most of human history. To be a theologian meant to be a philosopher as well. Scientists, in fact, plied their trade working in philosophy and theology as part of their basic world view. Gradually these fields began to separate further and further from one another until now we practically see them as entirely different disciplines. This is not the case, but it is popularly thought to be the case.

Due to all these many and converging events, most people born after the start of the industrial revolution simply accept the idea that logic, reason, or science are outside the purview of faith. In the more conservative circles, there still thrives the second current of anti-intellectualism. In the modern era, "church folk" don't like talking about what we could learn but rather what we already know. Having a conversation amongst them can be a remarkable experience. As a theologian, people often ask my opinion on religious matters of all sorts. If I begin to offer a line of reasoning that goes a direction they disagree with, and if that reasoning takes its queue from any source other than direct Biblical texts, they stop and tell me how they only take their theology from the Bible; they don't allow any other source to "cloud" their minds. They often go on to explain how anything else is "man's" thought, not God's.

I greatly appreciate how this is a sincere and well meaning point, but it has more to do with the imagined separation of science and religion than it does a proper understanding of how to gain Biblical truth. The stance they take is that religious truth exists in a vacuum. If one merely reads the Biblical text, they will understand. This ignores so many factors I must save them for another article. Lest I chastise too much, let us be reminded of what brought them here. If one finds higher learning to be one's enemy, and one finds science largely expressed as a study of the material world as your enemy, what are you left with? Christians are not about to surrender a faith they know to be true because they have met their God and enjoy a relationship with Him. Thus, they retreat to the idea that faith stands alone and unsupported by other disciplines. This is what I mean when I say; they think of Biblical truth existing in a vacuum. I read it, I understood it, don't confuse me with other facts I already know to be hostile to my faith. Let me offer an example as a culmination of my point.

I met a young man the other day who made what seemed to him an innocuous statement. "Logic," he exclaimed, "I think its logic that keeps us from accepting the Bible." As I began to protest he offered an example. "It's like Jesus walking on the water; it just defies logic."

"I disagree entirely." I replied. "Sin, by its very nature is illogical; it makes no sense at all. Adam and Eve walked and talked one on one with God and still chose sin. Good logic would have dictated otherwise. But what's worse is that such a statement as "Jesus walking on the water goes against Logic," is only true if you allow recent history to dictate what's logical. Think of it like this: If you start from the position that there is no God, then, logic would dictate that miracles are illogical. But, if you start from the position there is a God, logic clearly would dictate miracles as rather normal. After all, if a supernatural world like the one described in the Bible exists, one might expect supernatural things to occur. In fact, you would be justified to go as far as claiming there is no supernatural world by definition even if God exists. This is because the things of the supernatural would be part of the normal order of the universe; they would not be strange or odd in any way, not out of the norm or out of the natural, not . . . supernatural. To say otherwise would be like treating pregnancy as an illness.

A bit less esoteric argument is that logic is neutral; it doesn't care or have an axe to grind. We do and modernistic enlightenment thinking does, but not logic.

You can use it well or use it badly but it's really the preconceived notions we start with that are at fault. If you allow the secular world to tell you religion is illogical (or somehow "different" from fact,) you have allowed them to set the rules of the game. Don't let them. Further more, if you allow yourself to assume that intellect is the enemy of faith you have agreed to the rules the secular world has given you.