Faith is not anti-fact, at least it's not supposed to be.

There is a misconception, among both Christians and non-Christians, that the faith that is centered upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in some way anti-fact.  In other words, to believe in Jesus Christ is irrational.  There are some within the Christian community, both now and historically, who would applaud that characterization, for their understanding of faith tends toward the mystical and away from the logical.  While it is true that at the heart of Buddhism there lies an illogical contradiction (i.e. that I don't really exist, that the things I sense are not in fact real), this is not the case with either Judaism or Christianity.  Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) are predicated upon a God who created this universe rationally because God himself is a rational being, and while the nature of God may be beyond our understanding, limited as we are in time and space, we do not believe God to be self-contradictory.  God, whose is spirit, chose to create a universe governed by the laws of physics, a universe in which 2+2=4 and cannot at the same time also equal 3 or 5.  As beings created in the image of God, part of our existence is the way in which our minds understand and utilize logic.  The Rationalist philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the idea of a priori knowledge, that which we do not need to be taught, but which is hard-wired (as it were) in the human mind. 

How then does faith fit with logic/rationality?  This is of course a large topic, one which has been the subject of many books arguing various nuances.  Let me simply take a brief look at the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 and the examples that follow it.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

At first glance, this verse might seem to lend weight to the idea of faith as an irrational thing, after all, what else can you say about believing something you don't see?  The listing of the Jewish saints that follows 11:1 confirms that the description is not intended to be one of irrationality.  Beginning with Abel, the author lists one after another of the men and women who, by faith, acted righteously.  If you look back at the stories that these examples refer to, you see that these people were not acting contrary to what their senses were telling them, they were not ignoring the facts on had, they were instead listening to the voice of their creator (often directly through conversations, dreams, or visions), responding to the evidence that they and their ancestors had seen regarding the reality of God (such as the birth of Isaac, the parting of the Red Sea, or the preservation of Rahab when the walls of Jericho fell), and obeying the Word received from God himself.  They were willing to live their lives now, even risk their lives, on the basis of what they knew to be true about God, his power, holiness, and love and were thus making a choice that was both rational and logical to value that which is eternal over that which is temporary.  As the soon to be martyred missionary Jim Elliot wrote in his journal in 1949, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."  It might seem crazy to an observer who does not know of God's history of utilizing his power on behalf of his people, to put one's life at risk to obey God rather than men, but it was not crazy at all to the likes of Daniel, who knew who God was, and acted accordingly.

Obviously, this is only scratching the surface of the discussion of faith and reason and how they interact with each other, but it does lend us an important warning about how Christians ought to think and act in this world.  We are not intended, by God, to be those who reject facts, evidence, and the like.  We are not supposed to be irrational, we are not supposed to ignore truths which are inconvenient to us.  Science is not the enemy of faith, neither are its sub-disciplines of archaeology, astronomy, biology, and the like. 

When Christians reject factual evidence out of hand, often for political reasons, they are simply chipping away at the foundation upon which they stand, strengthening doubt and weakening Truth by rejecting truths they do not like.  It is a dangerous game to insist that an event which occurred 2,000 years, and was witnessed by many and duly recorded, it absolutely True, but that which is observable and quantifiable right here and now is a conspiracy or a lie. 

I am not a Christian in spite of evidence to the contrary, my faith is not an act of defiance against rationality and logic.  I do not claim to have attained faith on my own (as if to give credit to my own mind), it is indeed an act of the grace of God to call lost sinners home through the Holy Spirit, but it is at the same time an action which confirms the evidence which my mind saw then and sees now, not one that ignores it.

To not "look Catholic" is a terrible rationale for a Baptist Church to base decisions upon.

The Red Bank Baptist Church of Lexington, South Carolina, recently voted (in Baptist Churches all members have a vote, and can vote at regular congregational business meetings regarding matters both great and small, i.e. the church budget, the calling/dismissing of a pastor, program and building issues, etc.) to remove a 7 ft. statue of Jesus which had been displayed outside the entrance to the church for the past decade.  According to Pastor Jeff Wright, "This is not a denomination issue, its a church decision.  We are removing it to end some confusion.  Some people have seen it, guests that have been here and have asked, 'Why is this on the front of a Baptist Church?"  In a letter the church sent to the artist, Delbert Baker Jr., Pastor Wright explained that the statue brings into question, "the theology and core values" of the church.

AP story: Baptist church's 'Catholic' Jesus statue to find new home

The Jesus statue at Red Bank Baptist Church that is being removed.

We live in interesting times.  On the one hand we have an ongoing debate that roils people's emotions and has led to protests and bloodshed concerning the removal of statues on public land which were erected to honor those who fought to retain slavery in America, and at the same time, we have a congregation choosing to remove a statue of Jesus from their property because it makes the building appear "too Catholic".

Whether or not a Baptist Church has a statue or painting of Jesus prominently displayed is not the most pressing theological question facing most churches, but the line of reasoning that led to the decision made by the people of Red Bank Baptist Church is of import to all churches, regardless of denomination.  We, as local churches and/or as part of a denomination, ought not to be deciding how we carry out our Biblical mandate to share the Gospel and make disciples on the basis of not doing so "like them".  The "them" in this case is the Catholic Church, but it could just have easily been the Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, or a host of others.  Why we do what we do, and how we do it, are questions far too important to be decided based upon a desire to have a unique "brand" as a church.

What is the proper standard for a church to base its decisions upon?  The bedrock standard is the Word of God itself.  Does the Bible encourage, prohibit, or is it silent on the issue at hand?  If the Bible encourages/commands the behavior/attitude in question, the discussion is over.  Our task is simply to obey.  If the Bible prohibits/condemns the behavior/attitude in question, again, the discussion is over, our task is to obey.  If the Bible is silent on the particular issue, we then look to see if principles contained in God's Word apply, we consider the wisdom of the collective Church's viewpoint on the issue over the ages, and we examine our own God-given reason and consciences as well.  These are the proper channels for discussion and debate among a local church or denomination regarding the choices we face and decisions we must make.  However, being "not Catholic", "not Pentecostal", or "not Presbyterian" is an invalid viewpoint, one that heightens divisions, encourages emotional instead of reasoned decisions, and in the end, leads to faulty theology.  In case you're wondering, making a decision based upon trying to mimic another church is an equally faulty methodology, albeit one that at least has a positive connotation.

Baptists are not alone in falling to this temptation.  Historically speaking many of the Counter-Reformation decisions of the Catholic Church were made on this same basis, to be "not Protestant", with less than helpful results.  Time and time again, churches have made decisions that were not based upon a careful and obedient understanding of God's Word, or upon wisdom received from our ancestors in the faith combined with our own reasons/consciences, but rather upon lesser criteria.  When we make decisions based upon reasoning and motivations that are less than ideal, or even downright foolish, how can we expect the decisions themselves to be God honoring and wise?

Not being privy to the internal discussions that took place at Red Bank Baptist prior to the decision, I don't know why they believe that the "theology and core values" of their church are threatened by an artist's depiction of Jesus, but if the answer contains any of this sentiment, "because it makes us look too Catholic", whether in the end they came to the right decision or not, the reasoning was dangerously faulty.




For some perspective, I write this as the pastor of an American Baptist Church with a rather unique architectural and artistic style among baptist churches that reflects the oil boom heritage of the Franklin area when the church sanctuary as it looks now was completed in 1904.  We have more art than most churches on the walls, including two giant murals of Jesus flanking the pulpit.  It would be a tragedy if a future generation decided to whitewash those murals to avoid looking like other Christians.

The sanctuary of First Baptist Church of Franklin