Evangelicalism: An Unsuccessful Movement against Rationalism - Research Paper Example

of Evangelicalism: An Unsuccessful Movement against Rationalism Research Paper Introduction The most prominent religious reaction against rationalism was evangelical Protestantism. The evangelical approach was to oppose rationalism with faith and conviction by engaging the heart rather than the mind. Jonathan Edwards, as a key evangelical, stated in a homily: “The last beam of the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ is worth more than all the human knowledge that is taught in all the most famous colleges in the world.”1 Evangelicalism is rooted in ideals which completely disclaimed principles of rationalism. However, though proposed as a criticism of rationalism, evangelicalism adjusted itself to rationalism in indirect ways. According to Bebbington, this is the reason why evangelicals embrace the anti-slavery ideology, which was resolutely promoted by rational Christians. Bebbington even portrayed evangelicalism as “an adaptation of the Protestant tradition through contact with the Enlightenment”.2 Consequently, evangelicalism unintentionally gave in to the form of simplistic and practical rationalism that the Reformers had bravely revealed in Catholic dogma and tried to erase from the Christian tradition.3 Therefore, it can be safely assumed that instead of successfully discrediting rationalism, evangelicalism failed for it eventually accepted the capacity of science and reason to provide a better understanding of God’s works and human predicament. Even the most fervent supporters of evangelicalism, such as John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield submitted to some of the major arguments of Enlightenment rationalism. Hence this paper tries to prove that evangelicalism was an unsuccessful reaction against rationalism. Overview of Evangelicalism and Rationalism The numerous religious groups that existed in colonial America by the latter part of the 18th century, the development of established religions financed by tax collections in a number of colonies, and decrees mandating church attendance may exaggerate the influence of established religion on the colonies.4 However, from the 1730s, there was a growth in the religious involvement of many of the colonies. In fact, most historians view the religious life of the latter part of the 18th century as a ‘great awakening’ of religious sentiment, but it was a sentiment toward a specific way or approach to faith. Because that approach focused on individual religious experience, it is referred to as ‘evangelicalism’.5 Two ministers became the leading figures in the evangelical awakenings—Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist minister in Massachusetts while George Whitefield was an English Calvinist and colleague of Charles and John Wesley, the founding fathers of Methodism.6 Edwards, generally considered as the best American thinker and theologian, observed a religious awakening among his parishioners in the 1730s and eventually became a leading scholar not only of the religious restorations, but also of the essence of religious experience.7 Both Whitefield and Edwards, as Calvinists, claimed that only God chose who would be given the blessing of salvation and that people themselves were incapable of making themselves deserving of that blessing.8 Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that common people could not reflect on their personal experiences to confirm if God had granted them signs; these signs were more likely to surface through listening to sermons, reading the Bible, and praying.9 Evangelicalism greatly influenced religious life in the colonies and contributed to the diversification of alternatives. Because the distinguishing feature of evangelicalism was personal experience, the restorations endowed greater power to individuals than to the ministers and churches in choosing their own religious path.10 There were also similarities between the restorations in North America and those in Scotland and England. While Whitefield and Edwards started to observe more profound religious involvement in North America, Charles and John Wesley were launching the moralizing crusade in England—Methodism—with its stress on individual experience, but experience that obliged people to receive the grace of God and not merely search for signs that God had elected them.11 There was an evangelical crusade in Scotland that had a greater Calvinist foundation and ritualistic component as people get together to look at their souls before a religious celebration that concluded in the commemoration of the Lord’ Supper.12 Methodist groups in North America started to congregate independently from Church of England groups. The Methodist approach was particularly appealing to women, who were marginalized in almost all established religious during that time. In a Methodist gathering, women had the opportunity to share their own religious experiences and acquire a sense of self-respect that was often lacking somewhere else.13 In fact, anybody who could bear witness to a personal experience of having received the grace of God was given the chance to speak. Comparable to the evangelical movement was another crusade that also supported individual freedom in issues of religion, but one that on the surface appears quite distinct from evangelicalism. It originated from the Age of Reason or Enlightenment and hence stressed reason or the function of rationality in deciding what to believe and practice as regards religion.14 The rationalist disposition assumed numerous forms, with the utmost doctrine denouncing religious bodies and religion of the period based on the assumption that they relied on irrational or unverifiable principles for their faith. Rationalists argued that reason could verify whether a belief was factual and did not require a Bible or other sacred texts or even priests/ministers to interpret its meaning.15 Everything that bears a mystical theme was doubtful to several Enlightenment philosophers. Other rationalists were more temperate, believing that rationality could identify among the different practices and dogmas of different religions what appeared deserving of faith—in short, what seemed ‘sensible’.16 If evangelicalism put the individual on a pedestal due to its great value for personal experience, rationalists did a similar thing due to its confidence in the supremacy of human rationality. Countless Americans of the colonial period were attracted to rationalism, even though they stayed active as members of a specific religion. Among them are Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. They all believed that rationality would provide a common individuality to all who accept the same fundamental truths.17 The common truths would involve ethics and morals because there were some general commonalities about the nature of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. For those attracted to rationalism, ethics and morals became nearly tantamount to religion; individuals like Washington and Franklin, for instance, promoted established religion not because they embraced its dogmas, but because they thought that established religion preached morals and ethics to people so they would be encouraged to become good, productive citizens.18 The religion of reason bestowed great freedom to the individual with regard to personal faith and practice outside the tenets of right and wrong. Rationalists hoped for extensive diversity, and they backed away from any attempts to oblige orthodoxy or conventionality to any particular religious method or group.19 Philosophic rationalism, on the other hand, criticizes empirical accounts of knowledge, in view of the fact that it considers all true knowledge as basing deductively on basic, simple ideas. This argument was adopted by Leibnitz and Descartes. It is rooted in the central argument of Descartes that knowledge should be accurate, and aims to attribute to philosophy the accuracy, certainty, and objective nature of mathematics.20 David Hume’s criticism of the causal relation resulted immediately in the Kant’s new rationalism, which stated that it was erroneous to consider ‘thinking’ as sheer analysis.21 J.S. Semler was the first prominent rationalist advocate who argued that true religion emanates from the human soul, and denounced the power of the Bible. However, he did not criticize the power of the Church, which he considered valuable in sustaining external harmony.22 This argument was strengthened by Kant who laid out his principle of rational morality as the sole existing true religion.23 Contradicting Assumptions of Evangelicalism and Rationalism Evangelicals have generally been suspicious of science and reason. The movement originating allegedly from the Evangelical Revival created a type of religion unfamiliar to thorough and scientific analysis. Historians have claimed that it was the Anglicans of the Broad Church school, and not the evangelicals, who were at the core of British science.24 On the contrary, evangelicals were the supporters of a truthful reading of the Bible that made them doubtful of developments in the knowledge of nature. Moreover, it has been claimed that their anti-rationality, anti-scientific standpoint was based on theology.25 They very much revered biblical revelation to the point of rejecting other religious sources. Thus it has recently been stated that evangelicals were characterized by a “rejection of the natural theology”26 joined together religion and reason/science during the 18th century. The assumption that God could be understood or studied, on this perspective, was denounced as a futile human endeavor. Adrian Desmond has stated, “For an evangelical minister, revelation overshadowed natural theology; it made any attempt to prove God’s actions from nature not only redundant but actually pernicious”.27 The idea has become popular and widely known that evangelicals were antagonistic to rationality because of their core religious beliefs. Their typical commitment to the Bible classified them among the enemies of reason and science. Because evangelicals were always conscious of the enlightenment they receive from the Scripture, they were inclined to reduce the importance of other sources of enlightenment. Hence Thomas Haweis, a key Anglican evangelical, differentiated the light of righteousness from the light of individual rationality.28 John Newton, the leading clergyman and a contemporary of Haweis, presented the harsh repercussion for the study of creation. He said, “The study of the works of God, independent of his word, though dignified with the name of philosophy, is not better than an elaborate trifling and waste of time”.29 Similarly it was observed that in Scotland numerous Christians publicly detested any mention in the sermon of issues concerning God’s work in nature for they were believed to be separate from the principles of grace.30 As stated in 1839 by a writer of the evangelical Anglican Christian Observer, the Bible “ought not to be bended and conformed to philosophy, but more plastic science should rather be assimilated to… Scripture”31 Science was considered plastic because scientists were always modifying their assumptions. Indeed, there appeared no valid basis for choosing scientific knowledge over the certain principles of the Bible. Thus there was a form of cynicism among evangelicals about the achievements of science. Even the key evangelical in the Church of Scotland in the early 19th century, Thomas Chalmers, believed that natural theology had narrow potentials. It simplified the essence of God and the human condition, but failed to explain the issue of salvation.32 He said, “Natural theology might announce the problem, but cannot resolve it”.33 He knows that some doubted the entire endeavor as an effort to replace the gospel by another belief system. Chalmers condemned this disbelief; but his own standpoint is an evident indication that even among its supporters evangelicalism enforced rigid limitations on what natural theology was ought to attain.34 The demotion of science and reason and the worship of Scripture could lessen the importance of science and reason. Even though George Whitefield may mention astronomy in his sermons, he infused almost no learning into his lectures and was charged by a Cambridge authority of belittling rationality in general.35 John Newton was eager to recognize that Christian may understand the knowledge of God in His works, but as long as “their inquiries are kept within due bounds, and in a proper subservience to things of greater importances.”36 The British Association for the Advancement of Science, which assembled a large number of actual professionals in the 1830s, was criticized by Frederick Nolan, an evangelical, for focusing on “the ascendancy of philosophy on the ruins of religion.”37 The natural world could be adequately appreciated deductively by the pious, rational individual from the teachings of the Bible. This traditional view was on the verge of extinction. Rationalists demonstrate that evangelicalism was able to completely disregard science and reason in general. The Failure of Evangelicalism to Depose Rationalism It is widely known that evangelicals recognized neither Enlightenment rationality nor science. They attempted to carry out two things all together: first, overturn the scientific transition from a ‘theocentric’ to a ‘heliocentric’ cosmos; and second, negate the Enlightenment’s annulment of transition from a ‘theocentric’ to an ‘anthropocentric’ cosmos.38 God as a Supreme Being and focus of contemplation was supplanted by rationality and human beings. To negate reason and science, and to support the role of God in creation, evangelicalism based reason and true knowledge on biblical revelations. All knowledge necessitated confirmation by the Bible.39 Yet, Evangelicalism in itself was pervaded by the influences of Enlightenment rationality, and this is where its failure to fully criticize rationalism originated from. Its leaders would generally cite the argument of Locke as the best explanation of human rationality. The empiricist approached introduced by Locke because similarly customary. Edwards refuted all assumptions based on “what our reason would lead us to suppose without, or before experience”.40 This was to accept the scientific method of induction. Even Wesley was compelled to reveal that inaccuracies about the Trinity could come with true faithfulness when he encountered an example of it because, he proclaimed, “I cannot argue against matter of fact”.41 Therefore, there was in the 18th and 19th century no indication of a conflict between Evangelicalism and rationality. Venn argued that “we can make no progress in any science ‘till we understand its first principles. In religion it is the same, that science, in which we all are most deeply interested.”42 Apparently, only a small number of Evangelicals in the Church of England embraced the principle of Hutchinsonianism-- a belief system refuting the findings of Newton on the assumption that the Bible holds an entire complex of natural philosophy. Much more widespread was a strong approval of Newton, like that of Joseph Milner.43 It is the framework of an interest in science that clarifies much of the obvious gullibility or openness of Wesley. He in fact wrote a book about electricity as a therapeutic medium. He argued that experiments were the groundwork of success in the field of medicine.44 In view of these arguments, it is not unexpected that followers of evangelicalism often talk about real Christianity as ‘experimental religion’.45 Edwards summarized the outlooks of evangelicals. He stated, “As that is called experimental philosophy which brings opinions and notions to the test of fact; so is that properly called experimental religion, which brings religious affections and intentions, to the like test.”46 Followers of evangelicalism have high regard for Newton. John Witherspoon, the founder of the Evangelical group in the Church of Scotland who eventually became an administrator of Princeton, discovered that instruction was “tinctured with the dry and unedifying forms of the schools… He introduced into their philosophy all the most liberal and modern improvements of Europe”.47 By focusing on scripture and scientific method, Venn recoiled from “all abstract reasoning about the nature of the soul”.48 Perhaps the foremost intellectual among evangelicals in 19th-century Church of England, Richard Cecil exclaimed “Keep off metaphysical ground”.49 The dedication to reason and science however did not result in a dismissal of all philosophy. In contrast, it produced its own philosophical position. Evangelicals discerned a law-driven cosmos around them. God created order. Natural theology was essential. There were countless indications in God’s work. The primary task of rationality, according to the leaders of evangelicalism, was to analyze the proofs. Reason is supposed to substantiate the presence of God. This was no sheer optimism: a bookseller who abandoned Methodism for enlightenment, James Lackington, was brought back to his faith by a series of writings on the proofs.50 In the 19th century the process of merging Christian theology and scientific apologetic was successfully carried out by Thomas Chalmers. Evangelicals were incorporating their religious convictions into the emerging ideology of the later Enlightenment.51 Evangelicalism was in fact in agreement with the force of Enlightenment rationality. Conclusion In conclusion, evangelicalism, in general, was not opposed to science and reason. Although there were some major differences between Evangelicalism and rationalism at first, there eventually emerged a strong combination of the two. However, it was evangelicalism that yielded to the power of rationality. Even though there was a certain extent of reluctance about the importance of rationality, particularly in the 18th century, the followers of evangelicalism were not, in most cases, the enemies of reason; and, although they prioritize the spirit and revelation over reason, they generally considered science and reason as tied up with God’s wisdom. The principles of the Enlightenment, completely embraced by almost all of them, persuaded respect for induction, Newton’s principles, and God’s work in nature. Their interpretation of God’s work in nature, especially as developed by Chalmers, was the foundation of the restoration of natural theory in the early 19th century. The world explored by reason and science, even if in agreement with religious conviction, no longer seemed to explain the divine. Rationality itself became a probable risk, and contemporary evangelicals were frequently to be suspicious of it. Nevertheless, before then, the growth of reason and science was often considered a ‘partner’. To understand the partnership between evangelicalism and Enlightenment rationality has not been usual. The entire 18th-century movement has been described as nonreligious in nature. The developments during the Enlightenment essentially functioned as a de-stabilizer of Christian convention. Bibliography Bebbington, D.W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. London: Routledge, 1993. Ceadel, Martin. The Origins of War Prevention: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1730-1854. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Hutchinson, Mark & John Wolffe. A Short History of Global Evangelicalism. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Hylson-Smith, Kenneth. Evangelicals in the Church of England 1734-1984. Edinburgh, EH: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1992. Lippy, Charles. Introducing American Religion. New York: JBE Online Books, 2009. Livingstone, David, D.G. Hart, & Mark Noll. Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Lovegrove, Deryck. The Rise of the Laity in Evangelical Protestantism. London: Routledge, 2002. Miller-McLemore, Bonnie. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Numbers, Ronald. Science and Christianity in Pulpit and Pew. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Olson, Roger. The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Olson, Roger. Pocket History of Evangelical Theology. New York: InterVarsity Press, 2007. Phemister, Pauline. The Rationalists: Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2006. Roberts, Michael. Evangelicals and science. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008. Sparks, Kenton. God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. Weaver, John & John David Weaver. Christianity & Science. New York: Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd., 2010. Read More