Critique of Pure Reason: Human Pride and Foolishness

In the Introduction to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant describes the foolish and blind ambition of man to make dogmatic assertions about things of which he has no experience. His antagonist is the philosopher of metaphysics with his abstruse proofs for the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and the existence of God. Kant thinks these are true, but he denies they are attainable by man's reason. "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (page 117, Cambridge edition, 1998).

Since then, modern man simple denies them.

And he claims Kant as one of the decisive turning points for making an absolute separation between faith and reason, then leaving faith in the dustbin.

I'm only a little ways into the Critique, but I see two foundational ideas from Kant that my age has missed: the foolishness of the educated, and the wisdom of the commoner.

About the metaphysicians Kant says: "Captivated by such a proof of the power of reason [from mathematics], the drive for expansion sees no bounds. The light dove, in free flight cutting through the air the resistance of which it feels, could get the idea that it could do even better in airless space. Likewise, Plato abandoned the world of the senses because it set such narrow limits for the understanding, and dared to go beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of pure understanding. He did not notice that he made no headway by his efforts, for he had no resistance, no support, as it were, by which he could stiffen himself, and to which he could apply his powers in order to put his understanding into motion" (p140).

And in his Preface to the same edition, he compares the monopoly of the schools, with their dogmatic proofs, to the simple and obvious understanding of the average man who believes in the immortality of the soul "on that remarkable predisposition of our nature, noticeable in every human being, never to be capable of being satisfied by what is temporal...leading to the hope of a future life". Or on the freedom of the human by "the mere clear exposition of our duties". And finally on the existence of God by "the splendid order, beauty, and providence shown forth everywhere in nature leading to the faith in a wise and great author of the world."

Kant calls this practical reason. It is not mathematical and can't be reduced to equations. But it is real and it is reasonable. It is an approach to reality rooted in the humility of being a creature. We cannot directly perceive the immortal. It is beyond our human ability. But what we can perceive reliably leads us to true thoughts about what or who the immortal is.

Bill Nye "the Science Guy" gave an interview to the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/02/bill-nye-universe-exclusive-interview_n_5233555.html). Asked about the most compelling scientific mystery, he answered:

"The whole thing puts me in awe when you start talking about the Big Bang. But as Einstein said, perhaps the most remarkable thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all, that we can make any sense out of it, is really amazing. I mean we’re these animals running around on this planet and we can understand that. What is the nature of consciousness? What is the nature of your mind? What goes on that I have a mind? I’d say I have a mind. It seems like I have a mind. You know, I speak with dogs frequently. They don’t really talk, but I feel they’re communicating. I just don’t think that they’ve asked these questions. But still they have emotions--they’re happy, they’re sad, they’re tired, they’re energetic in ways like people, but I don’t think they’ve asked a lot of questions. I don’t think they do a lot of calculus, not formally anyway."

What a wonderful answer. I have another term for this: the image of God. I think his hesitation comes because he knows he's giving a theological answer to a supposedly scientific question. But it's a human question. The answer cannot be reduced to space and time and mathematics, but my perception and understanding of space and time and mathematics presupposes a "me" that is doing the perceiving and understanding. And in a world without faith, or without practical reason, there's not much of a "me".

With greater education and understanding, human pride puffs up and then confuses and forgets the most basic truths about our existence as creatures. I think this is what Kant has in mind by setting limits and bounds on the capability of pure reason, and yet we use his very arguments to prove that this life is all there is, man is essentially an animal, and there is no God.

The Good Old Hymnal

The evangelical church has struggled with its worship music for decades. Should we sing the old and great hymns that Christians have been singing for years, or should we sing contemporary songs with modern tunes and lyrics? The issue has largely been decided. Very few churches stick to just the old hymns. I'm pretty sure most evangelical churches don't even have hymnals. And for churches offering two styles, often in two services, it's just a matter of time before the old guard dies off.

I'm 43 right now. I grew up on hymns. I've also sung and played and enjoyed plenty of contemporary choruses over the years. But, given the choice, I'll go Watts over Tomlin. But I also prefer a Chopin etude over Kanye West, and I'm much more likely to watch Columbo than CSI (is that show popular still?) I think I'm already one foot into the dinosaur camp.

There is the reformed crowd, hunkered down with the regulative principle and liturgy. But even that has its gradations: only chanted Psalms with no instrumentation, or metrical Psalms with simple instrumentation, or metrical Psalms plus traditional hymns like A Mighty Fortress, or maybe A Mighty Fortress updated to modern musical tastes like a steady 4/4 beat. And the variations stretch all the way to the contemporary reformed music of Sovereign Grace Ministries.

I don't think the challenge for evangelicals is traditional vs. contemporary. I don't think it's a choice of hymns or choruses. I suspect at the center of the problem is simply the loss of the hymnal. We have rushed to the digital age with hardly a thought of the consequences. If we can project some lyrics from a laptop, isn't that better than being stuck with the old and fraying hymnal we can't afford to update? Clearly there are advantages to the digital age, but I think the dangers are easily overlooked.

A central feature and flaw of contemporary music is that it is consumed. It's easy to change, so we do change. We no longer have a tradition of songs which shape our faith and form our community. Instead, each generation has its own music: the youth sing a totally different set of songs than the adults, and their kids will surely sing another. And because the music is changed quickly and easily, the criteria for that change are light. Hardly any effort at all. It's easy to pick a song because it has an appealing sound, or has lyrics which really speak to us, or is the newest release from a publishing group or worship band we really like. The consequences are that our worship music must constantly change to follow the popular sound, the lyrics are increasingly experience focused, and Christian music corporations report quarterly profits and losses on the NYSE. We consume our worship music like we consume just about everything else in this digital age.

My proposal is for the evangelical church to create a modern hymnal. Not a bound book of old songs, but a well-defined list of songs that communicate our faith and form a church tradition. Put it on the web site or Power Point projector, but make sure "it" is actually defined. The list should include traditional and contemporary music. It can change over time, but do not let it change lightly. Musicians will play a key role in the formation of the hymnal, but it cannot be left only to them. Give our hymnal the full attention and scrutiny of the pastorate, including our best theologians. It doesn't mean you can't ever sing outside the hymnal, but choose to make it the exception. I'm calling for a robust theology of music and its role in the church, embodied in a collection of songs.

Colossians 3:16 says "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." This is not a command to only sing old hymns. But it is clear teaching that the Word of Christ ought to be planted deep within us through the songs we sing with each other and to each other. What do our songs teach us about our faith? What do they say we believe? Or how we should live? Let's sing it. It will help to shape us as Scripture moves in and through our minds and hearts.

Every age group in the church should learn the new hymnal: children, youth, adults and seniors. We sing it together. And learning includes not just the words but the music. Just like everyone can learn to read, everyone can learn to make music. Don't leave musicianship for just the few on stage. To achieve this vision of a broad musical literacy requires notes on the page, not just words on the screen. Do you want to learn how to play the guitar or piano or trumpet? Here's our hymnal; let's work on it together!

I also believe that if our singing was given the full weight and consideration it deserves, we will also see the need for a broader, richer musicality. We can't always sing happy, upbeat music. We need a broader palette. Our music can help us feel and truly believe the weight of our sinful condition and the mournful condition of the world. But these musical considerations will naturally follow from a proper attention to the Word of Christ dwelling richly in our lyrics.

Finally, what about music as outreach? What will be welcoming and attractive to the outside world to come in and hear the gospel? Whatever it is, I don't think a hip musical style is the answer. Rather, let's be concerned about what kind of people our music is forming us to be, and trust that God will use the living witness of a people who are joyful in God, mournful over their sin, loving towards each other, and thoughtful in their faith and living.