What is the purpose of Reason?

[Colabomb]

Fortunately, I do not believe that God is a despot. If I thought so, I wouldn't worship him. If I thought that all of Christianity was bunk, I'd be gone. To me, it is the rigid, dogmatic view of God that is illogical. Humans try to understand what is beyond their comprehension...and end up ascribing human qualities to God, who far surpasses us.

Kind of like if a squirrel monkey tried to write a book that explained humans. A squirrel monkey will never fully be able to grasp the human experience & perspective, even if a human patiently explains it in detail. So what you would get is a tome detailing the prevailing squirrel monkey wisdom regarding humans. Is this the fault of the human? No. Just that the book will have built in limitations.

Luckily, I don't just experience God from scripture...I experience God each day. Where scripture, tradition and reason all fit together and make sense, I have no issue. Where scripture seems to contradict itself, I turn to reason and what I KNOW to be true...that God is good and merciful and loving. If the scripture shows God in that light, great. If it shows an anthropomorphized version of God, a deity basically behaving like a crack addled dictator...then I think "Wow, that is sooo off base".

Tradition supports that Scripture is Trustworthy.

Also, you circumvented my question. Why do you trust the portions of Scripture that describe God as Merciful and ignore the ones that show His Wrath and Justice? Why do you trust Paul when he says Christ is divine, but doubt him when he says Homosexuality is sinful?

Why not Vice Versa? On what do you base your faith. You have told me what you believe, but not why.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Here is what the Virginia Report (whatever that is) has to say about the interdependence of Scripture, Tradition and Reason

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/lambeth/reports/report1.html

I. The Anglican Way: Scripture, Tradition and Reason

• Anglicans are held together by the characteristic way in which they use Scripture, tradition and reason in discerning afresh the mind of Christ for the Church in each generation. This was well described in the Report of the Pastoral and Dogmatic Concerns section of Lambeth 1988.
• Anglicans affirm the sovereign authority of the Holy Scriptures as the medium through which God by the Spirit communicates his word in the Church and thus enables people to respond with understanding and faith. The Scriptures are "uniquely inspired witness to divine revelation", and "the primary norm for Christian faith and life".
• The Scriptures, however, must be translated, read, and understood, and their meaning grasped through a continuing process of interpretation. Since the seventeenth century Anglicans have held that Scripture is to be understood and read in the light afforded by the contexts of "tradition" and "reason".
• In one sense tradition denotes the Scriptures themselves, in that they embody "the tradition", "the message", "the faith once delivered to the saints". Tradition refers to the ongoing Spirit-guided life of the Church which receives, and in receiving interprets afresh God's abiding message. The living tradition embraces the ecumenical creeds, the classical eucharistic prayers, which belong with the Scriptures as forming their essential message. Tradition is not to be understood as an accumulation of formulae and texts but the living mind, the nerve centre of the Church. Anglican appeal to tradition is the appeal to this mind of the Church carried by the worship, teaching and the Spirit-filled life of the Church.
• Properly speaking "reason" means simply the human being's capacity to symbolise, and so to order, share and communicate experience. It is the divine gift in virtue of which human persons respond and act with awareness in relation to their world and to God, and are opened up to that which is true for every time and every place. Reason cannot be divorced either from Scripture or tradition, since neither is conceivable apart from the working of reason. In another perspective, reason means not so much the capacity to make sense of things as it does "that which makes sense", or "that which is reasonable". The appeal to reason then becomes what people - and that means people in a given time and place - take as good sense or "common" sense. It refers to what can be called "the mind of a particular culture", with its characteristic ways of seeing things, asking about them, and explaining them. If tradition is the mind that Christians share as believers and members of the Church, reason is the mind they share as participants in a particular culture.
• Anglicanism sees reason in the sense of the "mind" of the culture in which the Church lives and the Gospel is proclaimed, as a legitimate and necessary instrument for the interpretation of God's message in the Scriptures. Sometimes Scriptures affirm the new insights of a particular age or culture, sometimes they challenge or contradict those insights. The Word of God is addressed to the Church as it is part of the world. The Gospel borne by the Scriptures must be heard and interpreted in the language that bears the "mind" and distils the experience of the world. Tradition and reason are therefore in the Anglican way two distinct contexts in which Scriptures speak and out of which they are interpreted.
• The characteristic Anglican way of living with a constant dynamic interplay of Scripture, tradition and reason means that the mind of God has constantly to be discerned afresh, not only in every age, but in each and every context. Moreover, the experience of the Church as it is lived in different places has something to contribute to the discernment of the mind of Christ for the Church. No one culture, no one period of history has a monopoly of insight into the truth of the Gospel. It is essential for the fullest apprehension of truth that context is in dialogue with context. Sometimes the lived experience of a particular community enables Christian truth to be perceived afresh for the whole community. At other times a desire for change or restatement of the faith in one place provokes a crisis within the whole Church. In order to keep the Anglican Communion living as a dynamic community of faith, exploring and making relevant the understanding of the faith, structures for taking counsel and deciding are an essential part of the life of the Communion

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Thanks for submitting that post, Naomi! What a wonderful summary of STR! And reading it only makes me more certain that being Anglican is the best!

 

[gtsecc]

Was that put out by Virginia Bible College?

 

[Wiffey]

LOL, nobody save Christ has the right to randomly demand that I justify my faith to them. I may disagree with you, but I do not deny your right to call yourself a Christian just because you see things differently than I do. My priest and my God have no problem with me...if you have an issue, that is your problem.

 

[Colabomb]

You can't debate if you are not willing to defend your point.

 

[gtsecc]

You can't debate if you are not willing to defend your point.

 

[artrx]

Here is what the Virginia Report (whatever that is) has to say about the interdependence of Scripture, Tradition and Reason

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/lambeth/reports/report1.html

I. The Anglican Way: Scripture, Tradition and Reason

• Anglicans are held together by the characteristic way in which they use Scripture, tradition and reason in discerning afresh the mind of Christ for the Church in each generation. This was well described in the Report of the Pastoral and Dogmatic Concerns section of Lambeth 1988.
• Anglicans affirm the sovereign authority of the Holy Scriptures as the medium through which God by the Spirit communicates his word in the Church and thus enables people to respond with understanding and faith. The Scriptures are "uniquely inspired witness to divine revelation", and "the primary norm for Christian faith and life".
• The Scriptures, however, must be translated, read, and understood, and their meaning grasped through a continuing process of interpretation. Since the seventeenth century Anglicans have held that Scripture is to be understood and read in the light afforded by the contexts of "tradition" and "reason".
• In one sense tradition denotes the Scriptures themselves, in that they embody "the tradition", "the message", "the faith once delivered to the saints". Tradition refers to the ongoing Spirit-guided life of the Church which receives, and in receiving interprets afresh God's abiding message. The living tradition embraces the ecumenical creeds, the classical eucharistic prayers, which belong with the Scriptures as forming their essential message. Tradition is not to be understood as an accumulation of formulae and texts but the living mind, the nerve centre of the Church. Anglican appeal to tradition is the appeal to this mind of the Church carried by the worship, teaching and the Spirit-filled life of the Church.
• Properly speaking "reason" means simply the human being's capacity to symbolise, and so to order, share and communicate experience. It is the divine gift in virtue of which human persons respond and act with awareness in relation to their world and to God, and are opened up to that which is true for every time and every place. Reason cannot be divorced either from Scripture or tradition, since neither is conceivable apart from the working of reason. In another perspective, reason means not so much the capacity to make sense of things as it does "that which makes sense", or "that which is reasonable". The appeal to reason then becomes what people - and that means people in a given time and place - take as good sense or "common" sense. It refers to what can be called "the mind of a particular culture", with its characteristic ways of seeing things, asking about them, and explaining them. If tradition is the mind that Christians share as believers and members of the Church, reason is the mind they share as participants in a particular culture.
• Anglicanism sees reason in the sense of the "mind" of the culture in which the Church lives and the Gospel is proclaimed, as a legitimate and necessary instrument for the interpretation of God's message in the Scriptures. Sometimes Scriptures affirm the new insights of a particular age or culture, sometimes they challenge or contradict those insights. The Word of God is addressed to the Church as it is part of the world. The Gospel borne by the Scriptures must be heard and interpreted in the language that bears the "mind" and distils the experience of the world. Tradition and reason are therefore in the Anglican way two distinct contexts in which Scriptures speak and out of which they are interpreted.
• The characteristic Anglican way of living with a constant dynamic interplay of Scripture, tradition and reason means that the mind of God has constantly to be discerned afresh, not only in every age, but in each and every context. Moreover, the experience of the Church as it is lived in different places has something to contribute to the discernment of the mind of Christ for the Church. No one culture, no one period of history has a monopoly of insight into the truth of the Gospel. It is essential for the fullest apprehension of truth that context is in dialogue with context. Sometimes the lived experience of a particular community enables Christian truth to be perceived afresh for the whole community. At other times a desire for change or restatement of the faith in one place provokes a crisis within the whole Church. In order to keep the Anglican Communion living as a dynamic community of faith, exploring and making relevant the understanding of the faith, structures for taking counsel and deciding are an essential part of the life of the Communion

sometimes i forget some of the many great reasons i became Episcopal. thanks! ( Virginia Theological Seminary is 20 minutes away. Our rector is invoved with pastoral ministries and we frequently have seminarians working at our church.)

 

[Tetzel]

You can't debate if you are not willing to defend your point.

Oh, but I hate defending my points! Is it ok if I just heap invective upon you?

 

[junegillam]

You can't debate if you are not willing to defend your point.

Why must we debate here? What does the model of "defend" imply in communictions and learning from each other as the body of Christ?

Our vestry uses a method of prayer, communication, and discernment in order to make consensus decisions for Trinity Cathedral.

How might we become less argumentative and more dialogic?

What about coming up with an alternative to debate in CF?

Wasn't the original question for this thread What is the purpose of Reason?

Are we now then in a debate about the purpose of reason or what?

jg

 

[Wiffey]

I am more than happy to debate or discuss the issues. Iam not willing to have my faith questioned or be asked to justify my right to be a Christian because you don't like my perspective on the place of reason.

And that is all I have to say on the topic. Encountering these sorts of personal jabs does nothing to edify me or make me feel closer to Christ. If you honestly think that sort of gambit brings anyone around to the opposing view...it makes me go from feeling fairly tolerant of all viewpoints to dearly wishing I had not even bothered to stay a Christian, as there are certainly other faiths with nicer adherents who are less dogmatic and rabid.

But you don't think I should be a Christian since I have a different perspective....so maybe it WOULD be best to pack up my child and leave the faith entirely. You know, I hadn't seriously considered that option until you pointed it out...........

 

[gtsecc]

If you honestly think that sort of gambit brings anyone around to the opposing view...it makes me go from feeling fairly tolerant of all viewpoints to dearly wishing I had not even bothered to stay a Christian, as there are certainly other faiths with nicer adherents who are less dogmatic and rabid.

But you don't think I should be a Christian since I have a different perspective....so maybe it WOULD be best to pack up my child and leave the faith entirely. You know, I hadn't seriously considered that option until you pointed it out...........

But, other faiths are not the truth.
If you think they are, or are some sort of equivalent substituite, you really don't buy the kerygma of the faith. That is not ment to sound mean, just to point out what you likely know. You would be surprised how simillar my views are to yours. I am pretty liberal, like yourself, and I was just about ready to reject the faith, because it seemed biggotted to me. Coming to embrace the history of the faith, and all its teachings helped me, and I finally came to believe conservatives really weren't just narrow minded. But, you have come from the EO, haven't you? I have a lot of very close friends who are EO, and they are far from anything one would call narrow minded - this has helped me a lot. You probably know so many, that you do know some who are biggoted. Heck, just remember, that isn't the faith. The best thing to do when times are difficult for your beliefs, are to try to pray the daily office morning and evening prayer daily. That will totally change you, and help your unbelief.

 

[Wiffey]

But, other faiths are not the truth.
If you think they are, or are some sort of equivalent substituite, you really don't buy the kerygma of the faith. That is not ment to sound mean, just to point out what you likely know. You would be surprised how simillar my views are to yours. I am pretty liberal, like yourself, and I was just about ready to reject the faith, because it seemed biggotted to me. Coming to embrace the history of the faith, and all its teachings helped me, and I finally came to believe conservatives really weren't just narrow minded. But, you have come from the EO, haven't you? I have a lot of very close friends who are EO, and they are far from anything one would call narrow minded - this has helped me a lot. You probably know so many, that you do know some who are biggoted. Heck, just remember, that isn't the faith. The best thing to do when times are difficult for your beliefs, are to try to pray the daily office morning and evening prayer daily. That will totally change you, and help your unbelief.

It is totally offensive that you assume unbelief because I am not conservative in my viewpoint. My faith is my faith. I believe in Jesus. But corporate Christianity can be (in my experience) a bit of a nightmare because of the mindset of so many Christians. My EO experience nearly finished me off. I was praying desperately to just not believe in Christ anymore in order to escape his followers. It was seriously that bad.

Being a hopeless optimist, I gave the whole going to church thing another shot in a church where reason (I thought) was embraced and diversity wasn't a dirty word. And actually, my parish is quite lovely in that regard.

Then I express a difference of opinion here about something like reason, or interpreting scripture metaphorically instead of literally...mind you not about anything like the Creed or Christ's divinity. And I get a rather pointed suggestion that I should go explore other faiths as I clearly am not someone else's idea of a "real" Christian. THAT is precisely the sort of mindset that sent me running from my former church...

Uggh. At no time have I EVER suggested that Christians who take a more traditionalist or literal view should not be able to call themselves Christians because I don't agree with them. The total gall to do such a thing is beyond my comprehension. I find it disheartening in the extreme. All I can say is that folks who do such things need to think about the fact that they may be actually turning people off to Christ. I love Jesus as I know him...but I can honestly say that if all I knew of him was your version I would renounce him this minute.

 

[higgs2]

It is totally offensive that you assume unbelief because I am not conservative in my viewpoint. My faith is my faith. I believe in Jesus. But corporate Christianity can be (in my experience) a bit of a nightmare because of the mindset of so many Christians. My EO experience nearly finished me off. I was praying desperately to just not believe in Christ anymore in order to escape his followers. It was seriously that bad.

Being a hopeless optimist, I gave the whole going to church thing another shot in a church where reason (I thought) was embraced and diversity wasn't a dirty word. And actually, my parish is quite lovely in that regard.

Then I express a difference of opinion here about something like reason, or interpreting scripture metaphorically instead of literally...mind you not about anything like the Creed or Christ's divinity. And I get a rather pointed suggestion that I should go explore other faiths as I clearly am not someone else's idea of a "real" Christian. THAT is precisely the sort of mindset that sent me running from my former church...

Uggh. At no time have I EVER suggested that Christians who take a more traditionalist or literal view should not be able to call themselves Christians because I don't agree with them. The total gall to do such a thing is beyond my comprehension. I find it disheartening in the extreme. All I can say is that folks who do such things need to think about the fact that they may be actually turning people off to Christ. I love Jesus as I know him...but I can honestly say that if all I knew of him was your version I would renounce him this minute.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that this forum represents "reality" in the Episcopal church. Please don't take offense at what you are hearing, it is a phenonomenon particular to the interenet! I hope you are not getting discouraged, please feel free to PM me if you want to.

 

[Wiffey]

The last thing I'll say on this...

What I love about Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.
I believe in Him.

What I find chilling is the lengths (historically) that Christians have gone to in order to eradicate opposing viewpoints. Crusades, the Inquisition, heresy trials and killing those one has disagreemants with...sectarian violence and religious wars.

Do I think that these historical atrocities represent what Jesus wanted or who he is? If I did, I would never enter a church again.

There are other faiths whose adherents have a far less blood soaked history. The average Buddhist, for instance, is far more peaceful, accepting and loving in their actions than the average Christian. Ironically, many Buddhists behave in a more Christ-like fashion towards their neighbors than Christians do. If I were going by how the adherents act (as a way to judge a religion), I'd have to acknowledge that Buddhists, Taoists and Unitarians have never gone on murderous rampages to eradicate other belief systems AFAIK.

The ability to separate who Jesus actually is VS what his followers have perpetrated on others in His name is what allows me to be a Christian.

It does not mean that I don't believe in Christ...but rather that I don't believe that people have always interpreted the will of God correctly. Because I do not believe that God condones murder in his name.

 

[pmcleanj]

Closed at request of Originating Poster