Apologetic Groundwork #4: Fideism

The primary apologetic position for most Lutherans is fideism. Fideists argue that it is improper to use human reason to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Christian faith.  The Holy Spirit operates through the bare Word of God and to use human reason is to infringe upon the work of the Holy Spirit. While fideists correctly understand that reason can be detrimental to faith they forget that reason is also a “gift of God” and a “useful servant in theology.” Simply put, the faith of a fideist is subjective and blind. The fideist approach is evident in Christian youth. What would our synod’s youth more likely say, that they believe Jesus rose or that they know that Jesus rose? A student from Martin Luther College noted that many of his classmates say that Christianity is true because of their faith. Is the truth of Jesus’ resurrection subjective or objective? Does Jesus’ resurrection rest on faith or fact? Youth ought to be taught that Christ really died and rose whether they believe in it or not. His resurrection is objectively true with or without my faith.

While fideists readily expose the dangers of rationalism, fideism has become easy prey in the new age of pluralism and relativism. Faith, in our age, is purely subjective and divorced from fact. It is a fideist version of Christianity that receives criticism from atheists like Richard Dawkins, who says: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” Anti-Christian rhetoric embraces the fideist concept of religion when it likens the Christian faith to faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, cosmic teapot, an invisible pink unicorn or a pantheon of pagan gods.1   John Warwick Montgomery writes,

“Under no circumstances should we retreat into a presuppositionalism of a fideism which would rob our fellow men of the opportunity to consider the Christian faith seriously with head as well as heart. Our apologetic task is not fulfilled until we remove the intellectual offenses that allow so many non-Christians to reject the gospel with scarcely a hearing. We must bring them to the only legitimate offense: the offense of the Cross.”2  

Have you not noticed how contradictory the subjective faith of the millennial is? A millennial may claim to be a Christian and strict Darwinist. A millennial may claim to be both Christian and pro-gay marriage. A millennial may claim to be Christian but they may also adhere to New Age or Universalist beliefs. Our relativist Christian youth often live in a contradictory way as their subjective reality trumps the objective. This is a dangerous position and I am concerned about the future of our synod when it falls into the hands of fidiest millennials. When Christianity is subjective then the subject dictates doctrine or becomes selective with doctrine.  While reason is rightly subjected, feelings and cultural consensus becomes Scripture’s magistrate. If you work with youth you may notice that when they discuss they will preface everything with the words, “I feel.” Augustine exposes the true nature of a subjective faith when he says, “You can believe what you like in the gospels and believe what you don’t like, but it’s not the gospel you believe it’s yourself.” Timothy Keller counters the fideist subjective stance by adhering to the historical and objective truth of Jesus’ resurrection: “If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all that he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.”3  

Does fideism protect Christians from rationalism? For the youth who think more objectively their fideism will likely crash on the shoals of atheism as they recognize that their faith is void of fact. Consider the following quote from a young man who attended church and Christian schools only to become an atheist at the University of Madison, Wisconsin: “Simply put, there is no verifiable truth in Christianity. I realized I was basing my life on something I was taking at face value. If I had grown up in a different religion I would be that religion for the same reason. My dilemma was that I had no defensible reason to be a Christian.” This young man was a fideist, and rather than protecting his faith from rationalism it destroyed it. 

Does fideism protect Christians from legalism? For those who take fideism to a subjective extreme the basis of assurance rests on not what is objective but rather on what is subjective. A subjective approach to Christianity offers a backdoor for legalism as it shifts the focus of one’s faith from the objective to the subjective. My faith becomes the basis for salvation. The subject of faith (the self) takes precedence over the object of faith (Jesus). This is a terrible irony when one considers how the fideist approach is advocated to shield the Christian from the legalism inherent in rationalism!

In the end, fideism preaches what it cannot put into practice. If we must avoid apologetics because of the possibility of entangling human reason and God’s Word then the next time you preach refrain from all human props. Refrain from any sort of logic, humor, emotion, passion and any use of your human reason which would include application, interpretation, and doctrinal systematization. Refrain from condemning rationalism because such a condemnation is expressed through reason. The fidest, like the relativist, will find that their position is self-refuting.

 We are not against human reason and neither is the Scripture. We are against the misuse of human reason. We are against an unbiblical view of human reason.  Our synod does not think twice when using our reason to discuss theology. What a beautiful servant reason is in this manner. And yet, we must be cautious that we do not err doctrinally. The same tact is required in our apologetic efforts. Lyle Lang advises against the position of avoiding apologetics due to its use of human reason:

“Does apologetics make use of reason? Certainly! Does this mean we cannot use apologetics because we are trying to “reason” people into the Christian faith? Certainly not! The Lord wants us to a give a defense for the hope that we have. Reason is involved in the process. However, the message conveyed by reason, the gospel, alone can convert. Studying how to do apologetics is as valid as study as homiletics and catechetics. We don’t send ministers of the gospel out into the field and tell them to write or say whatever comes to their minds. We train them before we send them out. Why should we do any less when it comes to equipping our students for defending the hope they have?”4  

As we discuss the role of reason in apologetics and the dangers of both rationalism and fideism we need to reacquaint ourselves with the definition of faith: a faith that includes knowledge, trust and the will. Fideism is a faith that scorns notitia while rationalism scorns fiducia. Alvin Schmidt advocates for a return to the confessional view of faith contra fideism:

”The Augsburg Confession (1530) states faith consists of believing “the history [and] also the effect of history, namely, this article of the forgiveness of sins – that is, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ” (Article XX). Briefly state, a Christian’s faith is not a subjective experience divorced from factual evidence in history, for instance, the bodily resurrection of Christ. Informed confessional Lutherans have always insisted that faith consists of notitia (knowledge), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust) in the promise of God in Christ

The threefold understanding of faith needs to be recovered and taught by Lutheran pastors in Sunday school classes for our youth, confirmation classes, adult Bible classes, and preached in sermons. Only then will the tendencies of many Lutherans to lapse into fideism come to an end when they, for example, are asked about the veracity of the Bible’s miracles and Christ’s resurrection. Instead of saying, “I believe them to be true,” they will respond, “I know them to be true, for the New Testament documents, which report them, have been shown to be true and reliable.”5

______________

1 The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion produced to mock Christianity. The cosmic teapot is a reference to philosopher Bertrand Russell who likened the existence of God to the existence of a teapot in earth’s orbit. The invisible pink unicorn is a modern version of Bertrand’s teapot. Atheists will also compare Jesus Christ to other pagan deities and say something like, “I just choose to believe in one less god that you.” Documentaries such as Zeitgeist and Bill Maher’s Religulous try to convince their audiences that Jesus is plagiarized from pagan myths. 
 2 Montgomery, John Warwick. “Faith Founded on Fact.” Irvine, CA: NRP Books, 2015, p. 41-42
 3 Keller, Timothy. “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.” New York: Dutton, 2008, p.202
 4 Lange, Lyle W. “Lutheran Apologetics: From Our Classrooms and into the World.” Lutheran Synod Quarterly 51, no. 4, December 2011, p. 13.

5 Schmidt, “Christianity Needs More Lutheran Apologetes.” P. 511.