Reason vs.  Experience

by Israel Wayne

In the realm of Epistemology (the study of how we know what we know), philosophers have postulated and juxtaposed two theories against each other: Reason and Experience.

Rationalists like Immanuel Kant or Rene Descartes argued that we can be certain of something only if it makes sense to our rational minds. Existentialists like Jean Paul Sartre, Soren Kierkegaard or Albert Camus would reject this strict rationalism in favor of personal and subjective emotional experience.

In many ways, this issue was a dividing line between Modernists (the Rationalists) and Postmodernists (the Existentialists). The secular Rationalists eventually ended up embracing an atheistic Nihilism, while the Existentialists did the same, in their own way. If you embrace Bertrand Russell or David Hume you can just as easily end up with the same hopeless despair embraced by Camus and Michel Foucault. Both roads lead into the same pit.

Christian Rationalism and Existentialism

In theology, we see the same tension over these issues. What is the nature of true conversion and salvation? On the one hand, you have those who claim that Christianity is a set of doctrines to be believed. If you believe the correct creeds and confessions about God, Jesus Christ and the Bible (and live according to those beliefs), then you are saved. Others maintain that Christianity is about a personal relationship with God and that you must experience a true inner transformation that has existential ramifications.

In some ways, the issues of Reason versus Experience are at the heart of Modernist Church versus Postmodernist (Emergent) Church "conversations." The Emergents see many believers in the "Traditional" church as being all about rules and doctrines and dogmas. They believe that truth is, in many ways, determined by our own personal experiences, and shared cultural values.

If you talk with both a Reformed Presbyterian and a Charismatic, you will likely come away with two different ideas regarding what Christianity is all about. One approach is certainly more cerebral while the other is clearly more demonstrative and experiential.

Apologetic Approaches

I saw an example of this recently while watching a video discussion (ABC Nightline Faceoff) with Deepak Chopra (a New Age guru) and Carlton Pearson (a former Charismatic turned Universalist) on one side, opposing Mark Driscoll (Emergent turned/turning Reformed pastor) and a Christian woman who used to be a stripper/prostitute. The conversation was about the existence of Satan (and expectedly focused quite a bit on Jesus as well).

During the discussion, Mr. Pearson made some disparaging remarks about the reliability of the manuscripts of Scripture. The young lady responded that those things really didn't matter to her. She was basing her belief in Satan's existence and her trust in Christ on her personal experience. Chopra praised and affirmed this approach. He indicated it was wonderful that she had found a coping mechanism that worked for her, but she shouldn't assume that the same answer would work for everyone else.

Driscoll, on the other hand, addressed the shabby scholarship attempted by Pearson and reaffirmed the reliability of the ancient texts of the Bible. Both Driscoll and the Christian lady were affirming the truth of the Bible, but they were coming at it from drastically different angles. One method was personal and subjective, the other was absolute and objective.

Finding the Balance

Stuart McAllister of RZIM has said, "The person with an experience is never at the mercy of someone with a theory." This is true. At the same time, however, we must make sure that our experience is in conformity to the absolute laws of God (otherwise we may find ourselves in the same category as the man who thinks he is a poached egg).

I remember singing a famous hymn when I was a child and wondering if it was theologically sound. "You ask me how I know He lives...He lives within my heart." As a teenager, I decided to try this approach on a Mormon. I was stopped by two "elders" (barely older than myself) who wanted to talk with me about their religion. I stopped them mid-sentence and asked the leader, "What difference has your faith had in your practical, everyday life?" He told me how he had been hanging around the wrong crowd, drinking and experimenting with drugs. Then one day he read the Book of Mormon and felt a strange warmth within. Since that day, his life was changed. Never again did he do those things. Now he was filled with peace and joy. There was little I could say to refute that.

However, does that mean that his religion is true (or at least, true to him)? No, it does not.

In order for something to be really true, it must correspond with external reality and satisfy the existential questions at the same time. Jesus Christ is the perfect merger of the "logos" (logic), becoming flesh and dwelling among us (existential application). If Jesus were merely a philosophy He could save no one, but the truth is that He is alive and actively changing lives in our day and age.

Only through the Bible, and through abiding in a saving relationship with the living God through Jesus Christ, can the ultimate questions of the mind and heart be fully met.

Copyright 2009, by Israel Wayne. All Rights Reserved.

Israel Wayne was home educated and currently serves as Marketing Director for the national publication Home School Digest, and the site editor for www.ChristianWorldview.net. He is the author of the book, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview, published by Wisdom's Gate. Israel and his wife Brook (also a homeschool graduate) have five young children. Write to: Wisdom's Gate, P.O. Box 374, Covert, MI 49043. 1-800-343-1943 or www.WisdomsGate.org