This series is titled: Praise God for Christianity: No Intellectual Progress Without It!

Did Christianity slow Western intellectual progress by replacing rational thought with mystery and authority?

In post-Enlightenment generations, this question has received ample attention in academic and popular level contexts. As encapsulated in his seminal work, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, Charles Freeman articulates a perspective championed by many who would answer the aforementioned inquiry in the affirmative.

In the fourth and fifth century A.D., [the Western intellectual progress made by the Greeks] was destroyed by the political and religious forces which made up the highest authoritarian government of the late Roman empire… By the fifth century, not only [had] rational thought been suppressed, but there [was] a substitution for it of ‘mystery, magic and authority,’ a substitution which drew heavily on irrational elements of pagan society that had never been extinguished… What cannot be doubted is how effectively the rational tradition [of the ancient Greco-Roman world] had been eradicated [by] the fourth and fifth centuries.[1] 

At first glance, Freeman’s argumentation may seem compelling. After all, even Bible believing historians have conceded that many self-identifying Christians substituted rational thought with mystery and authority prior to the Enlightenment era. In the subsequent quotes, three prominent church historians appear to indicate continuity with the concerns being levied by Freeman. The first quote highlights the rampant ascetism that transpired during the Patristic era (AD 100-500); the second quote pertains to the widespread prevalence of mysticism during the Medieval era (AD 500-1500); the third quote reflects the enormous influence that the visible church had upon the state in every century leading to the Protestant Reformation (AD 400-1500).[2]  

Regarding Asceticism During the Patristic Era

Many in the early church urged what could be described as a very suspicious and loose association with the world and its attractions. This attitude verged on asceticism, or disdain for anything physical and pleasurable. Tatian’s moto was, “Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it! Live to God, and by apprehending him lay aside your old nature!” Clement of Alexandria urged believers to wean themselves from the world: “For if you would loose, withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross means)  your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life, you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope”… Cyprian [also] urged believers that “whatever things are earthly, and have been received in this world, ought to be scorned, even as the world itself is scorned.”[3]

Regarding Mysticism During the Medieval Era

The mystical movement, the classical form of Roman Catholic piety, developed as a reaction against formal and mechanical sacerdotal ritual and dry Scholasticism in the         [Medieval] church. It reflected the perennial tendency toward the subjective aspect of Christianity, which always occurs when too much emphasis is laid on outward acts in Christian worship. In that sense, mysticism may be thought of as anticipating the more personal approach that was such an outstanding characteristic of the Reformation. Tendencies to substitute a subjective inner authority for the Bible and to minimize doctrine were some of the dangers in such a movement. In its excesses there was danger of its being so passivistic that its adherents would become introspective and antisocial.[4]

Regarding the Church’s Influence on the State From 400-1500 AD

Between the sixth and eighth centuries, [the] monasteries became far more closely linked with the society within which they existed. Their abbots and monks were related to local        noble families; lands were granted to them by kings and magnates; they achieved both economic and political importance. Instead of a group of individuals fleeing from the world to live a life of perfection, the monastic community was becoming a religious corporation which served a definite function in society… [Indeed] in every century of the Middle Ages, from about 400 to about 1500, the church was a dominant element of society.[5]

When interacting with critiques of Christianity that are in keeping with the assertions communicated by Charles Freeman, it is paramount for believers to honestly deal with the testimony of church history. Upon weighing the evidence, there are justifiable grounds for claiming that throughout church history, the visible Church was often drawn to asceticism, mysticism, and authoritarian leadership propensities (i.e., “mystery and authority”). Stated differently, self-identifying followers of Jesus Christ have not always represented the pinnacle of Western intellectualism over the past 2000 years. Nevertheless, even in making these historical concessions, and in recognizing that people of every ideological persuasion have their share of faults, Christianity itself did not slow Western intellectual progress. Christianity itself did not replace rational thought with mystery and authority. Rather, it is Christianity—as a worldview—that makes rationality possible in the first place.

It is the contention of the author that every intellectual advancement that has been made throughout human history has only been accomplished by virtue of presupposing the truthfulness of the Christian faith. Any historical examples portraying Christians as replacing rational thought with mystery and authority are merely testimonies of how they failed to live consistently within their own worldview.[6] In the final analysis, a failure to live consistently with one’s worldview does not, in and of itself, negate the truthfulness thereof. Rather, when reflecting on the validity of a worldview, it must be examined on its own terms in order to deduce its cogency. What are the terms upon which a worldview must be evaluated? How can a worldview be regarded as a viable framework for understanding reality? Jason Lisle helpfully addresses these queries in his treatise, The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate.  

In order for a worldview to be rationally defensible, it must be internally consistent. But just because a worldview is self-consistent does not necessarily mean that it is correct. There is another criterion as well. A rational worldview must provide the preconditions of intelligibility. These are conditions that must be accepted as true before we can know anything about the universe. The preconditions of intelligibility are things that most people take for granted[7]… A logically correct worldview must provide [the]preconditions of intelligibility, because without them we could not know anything about the universe.[8]

In forthcoming articles, the author will demonstrate how the most basic preconditions for intelligibility are exclusively grounded in the Christian worldview. Indeed, intellectual progress is not slowed by Christianity, but rather, intellectual progress is only made possible on the basis of presupposing the core tenets of Christianity. May the remainder of this series provide readers with much to think about in regard to the philosophical veracity of the Christian faith.

Soli Deo Gloria!

---

[1] Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2005), xvii-xix.

[2] The date ranges are approximations derived from R. Scott Clark, “Historical Theology,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed May 23, 2022, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/
historical-theology/.

[3] Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 523.

[4] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 244.

[5] Tim Dowley, ed., Introduction to the History of Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018), 308, 330.

[6] Throughout the duration of this series, the following definition for “worldview” will be utilized:

“A worldview is an overall view of the world.. A worldview is an all-encompassing perspective on everything that exists and matters to us. Your worldview represents your most fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the universe you inhabit. It reflects how you would answer all the ‘big questions’ of human existence, the fundamental questions we ask about life, the universe, and everything… Your worldview shapes and informs your experiences of the world around you. Like a pair of spectacles with colored lenses, it affects what you see and how you see it… Worldviews play a central and defining role in our lives. They shape what we believe and what we’re willing to believe, how we interpret our experiences, how we behave in response to those experiences, and how we relate to others.”

This definition was derived from James N. Anderson, What’s Your Worldview?: An Interactive Approach to Life’s Big Questions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 12-13.

[7] Throughout the duration of The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2015), Jason Lisle notes that laws of logic, uniformity of nature, reliability of human sense perception, and moral absolutes are the predominant “preconditions of intelligibility” that comprise any worldview.

[8] Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate, 38-39.