Graduate 54: Embracing Reason, Part 1 of 3: Abraham

This is the first of a series of blogs (I think there will be three but I haven't actually written the other ones yet, so we'll see) on the topic of reason and rationality. My views have been changing over the past several weeks and I think I am emerging from a kind of postmodern slumber. The key feature of postmodernity with which I am grappling is the deep skepticism about the ability of human reason and language to genuinely engage the world, grasp objective truth, and communicate meaningfully with other people. My recent thoughts are still in their nascent form, but I am excited about their direction.

I'm not sure that the following material makes for the best introduction to my thoughts, but it came together the most readily and makes, I think, a useful point that may help to illuminate my later meditations. It is an engagement with the biblical narrative of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.

--

Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." And He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

On the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place from a distance. And Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder; and we will worship and return to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together.

And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." So the two of them walked on together.

Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there, and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son. (Genesis 22:1-13)

--

This passage of Scripture raises troubling questions for many people. I've participated in several conversations with friends who have serious qualms about the message and content of this story.

Why would God ask Abraham to kill (or murder, as some put it) his son? How can Abraham be praised and revered for his willingness to kill his son? We would never believe a person who claimed to have received such a command from God today so how can we take Abraham's experience seriously?

One of the most famous treatments of this passage comes from the Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), in his book, Fear and Trembling. There he wrestles with the tension between (what he takes to be) Abraham's intended action--i.e. murder--and the veneration that he receives for his "faith." In order to generate the tension, Kierkegaard draws upon Kantian ethics, which was the prevailing ethical system at his time and posited an absolute moral law. According to the "categorical imperative" at the center of that system, ethical actions are those that can be universalized, acted out publicly, and ***. These are the principle components of a rational ethical system. Now Abraham's intended action fails to meet the criteria of an ethical action according to Kant's system. Certainly one would not wish to universalize an ethical principle permitting one to kill his son. (in the same way that one would wish to universalize a principle to always tell the truth). And if Abraham's intentions were made public knowledge, certainly his community would not have allowed him to follow through. ***. And yet in spite of all this, Abraham is praised for his actions and his faith.

Kierkegaard recognizes that "faith" trumps "ethics" in this case. But he also concludes that since "faith" moves in a direction contrary to (rational Kantian) ethics, faith must be irrational.

The influence of Kierkegaard's thought can be seen in the large number of people who think that faith, believing or following God, is fundamentally irrational and always contrary to best reason. And many people are troubled by the thought that God might call upon an individual (like Abraham) to do something plainly foolish (or wicked) and simply expect them to do so. And so we ask questions like those listed above.

--

But is that really all there is to the story? Faith is necessarily irrational.

How about considering a different approach, beginning with a few clarifying remarks.

--

Isaac was not just Abraham's son. He was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham.

Abram's story begins in Genesis 12, when God appears to Abram and says,

"Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father's house,
To the land which I will show you;
And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (vv.1-3)

And Abram trusted in God and followed His instructions; he went to that foreign land and settled there. God protected Abram from the Egyptians (despite his foolishness and attempted deceit). He increased Abram's wealth and influence. When the land was not able to sustain the flocks of him and his nephew, together, Abraham allowed Lot the choice of land. Lot chose to claim the best, most well-watered, and fertile land. But did Abram suffer because of that? No, instead, he continued to prosper and God continued to provide for him.

--

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying,

"Do not fear, Abram,
I am a shield to you;
Your reward shall be very great."

And Abram said, "O Lord, GOD, what wilt Thou give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" And Abram said, "Since Thou hast given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir." Then behold , the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." Then he believed in the LORD and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

--

Isaac was the son of promise, born to Abraham when he was over a hundred years old--his first-born son (through Sarah). Not only that, but he was the tangible fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham regarding his legacy to future nations.

The thought has occurred to me and others that since child sacrifice was not uncommon in the Ancient Near-East, then it may not have been such a big deal, speaking culturally, for Abraham to sacrifice his son. But that "solution" is only a red herring. Clearly Isaac was not just another son and Abraham's plight, in being called-upon by God to sacrifice his son, is not made easier by this fact. And while that fact may help some to reconcile in their minds the ethical status of Abraham's action, ultimately it distracts from the message of the actual narrative.

Isaac was the child of Abraham's old age, his pride and joy, the fulfillment of his hopes and dreams, his future hope--so why would he be willing to sacrifice Him when asked by God??? Why did he not confront God and point out that sacrificing his son would be counterproductive to God's expressed intention for him. Was it just blind faith? Blind obedience? A fear of wrath on God's part? A fear stemming from superstitious, unsophisticated, and primitive cultural beliefs (with, by extension, no useful application for people in an enlightened, modern age)?

No, the simple answer is that Abraham was willing to surrender all his hopes and dreams and happiness to God, because he trusted in God.

The book of Hebrews expands on this point: "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, "In Isaac your descendants shall be called." He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." (11:17-19)

--

But, one may ask, isn't such trust naive? After all, one couldn't really know for certain that God would not abandon Abraham instead of restoring his son to him.

And the response: Certainly one could not know that who did not already know God. But Abraham did, and that's exactly the point. Those who think that Abraham's faith and trust in God are contrary to reason or naive forget that the reason that Abraham trusted in God is because he knew God.

He had spoken and interacted with God over several decades at least. He had relied on God regularly, seen God's faithfulness demonstrated on multiple occasions. Abraham knew God. It's easy to forget that God did not first introduce Himself to Abraham and right-off-the-bat demand his son's life of him. God did challenge Abraham to take a risk--he told him to leave his home country and move to a foreign land. Abraham obeyed and saw God provide for his needs. And over the years, Abraham experienced God's faithfulness and provision, so that when his character was put to the most extreme test, he held true and stands as a model and example for the hundreds of generations that have followed and read his story.

--

There is a hypothetical objection that asks what would have happened if a demon had appeared to Abraham, disguised as a messenger from God, and asked for the life of his son. The scenario supposedly implies that Abraham, since he was not basing his actions on any rational principle, would have sacrificed his son just as readily to a demon (which would definitely be contrary to God's will) as to God. But given our discussion so far, it should now be clear that Abraham would never have been taken in by a demonic deception. Why? Because he knew God. And because he knew God, he would have recognized an imposter.

Here's where things get a little hyperbolic, so please don't be offended: Some people have trouble believing that a person could discern the difference between a genuinely God-sent vision and a demonic deception. And the fact that they have that doubt just shows that they don't know God.

Again, don't be offended. I don't know that I could tell the difference between a God-sent vision and a demonic deception. That's also why God would not ask me (or most of the people in the history of the world) to sacrifice my first-born son. Those kinds of tests only come to those who have walked with God for a long time and grown to a very high level of maturity in their relationship with God. The rewards that come from having such faith are also only available to those who have grown strong in their walk with God.

Unfortunately, there are many Christians who don't know God. Or, put another way, the only thing they know about God is that He sent His Son, Jesus, to die on a cross so that those who believe in Him would go to heaven. And there's nothing wrong with having only that much knowledge--for a beginning Christian. But to have been walking with God for ten, twenty, forty, eighty years and still not know more of God's character than that, to not be able to trust God when He asks you to take a risk and have faith in Him--that is a grave situation. The Christian life is to be one of growing in the knowledge of God; it starts small and gets bigger as one takes risks and trusts in God, sees Him work, listens for His voice and learns to recognize when He is speaking.

--

But enough sermonizing for the moment. Hopefully it is becoming clear that faith, understood in this way (which I take to be truer to the biblical text than Kierkegaard's well-intended interpolation), is not fundamentally irrational or grounded in ignorance. It is true that there are unknowns and risk involved, but faith and the proverbial "leap of faith" do not have so much to do with one's ignorance about the circumstances and outcomes as they have to do with one's certain knowledge of the nature and character of the God who controls all things. So that even when things turn out badly and not as one expects, one can still believe that there is a larger purpose and plan that are being worked out, and trust that, in the long-term, "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)

Now one may remain unsatisfied with the explanation given up to this point. Even with all this stuff about trusting in God and knowing God, one may ask, isn't God still asking Abraham to murder his son? And isn't that a problem?

(Preliminary comment: we need to recapture a variety of significant distinctions important for meaningful discourse on these and other complex topics. The equation of murder with sacrifice betrays, I think, a failure to take seriously the important differences between these two forms of death. For many today, killing is killing and that's the end of it. I will not treat the differences here, but it is something that must be taken seriously.)

My answer to the question may be equally unsatisfying for some to hear: I don't think I can begin to answer that question until the questioner undergoes another radical reorientation. We have begun one kind of reorientation: instead of focusing on one's ignorance of the circumstances and outcomes, we are focusing on one's certain knowledge of the nature and character of God. That is a kind of intellectual reorientation, but there is another existential reorientation that must take place, viz. we must move God out of the dock (the witness stand where we pepper Him with questions and call on Him to account, to our satisfaction, for all His actions) and onto His rightful throne (where He rules the universe and all the affairs of humankind and our own lives as good and righteous and holy king). We must get to know God as He is; only then can we hope to begin to understand His actions.

God is not inscrutable. God is not unknowable. God is higher and greater than we are, yet he is not inaccessible. But we must approach Him in the appropriate way. This is true of knowledge in general and Abraham's story serves as an excellent case study on just that point. Kierkegaard took for granted that Kant's categorical imperative captured the essence of rational ethics so when "faith" led Abraham in the opposite direction from what Kant's model dictated, he concluded that faith must be irrational. But what if we didn't start with Kant's categorical imperative? What if we began by walking with God and talking with God, working with, listening to, following, and trusting in God? We might come to slightly different conclusions.

--

The very idea that we could have knowledge of spiritual or religious things strikes some as absurd. On their understanding the spiritual and religious belong to the realm of faith and belief while the scientific and physical/natural belong to the realm of facts, knowledge, and reason. I want to suggest that these two realms are much more closely intertwined than many think. Reevaluating the story of Abraham is one step in this process of closing the divide between faith and reason. I will clarify, in my next entry, how this, in turn, works toward an awakening from postmodernity.

--

*** I can't recall the third characteristic at this time.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.