However, based upon some of my experiences, outside traditional Christian circles, there are probably more people who find us unreasonable than we’d like to admit. Namely because they don’t by the Bible as being a book that was divinely dictated. So, when we claim to know by creation, of which the narrative is contained within the passages of scripture, it doesn’t fly in most secular circles. And when we speak of reason or being reasonable, there are so few of us who are willing to allow those basic beliefs to be challenged, that it’s pretty easy to throw an “unreasonable” label our direction, because most of us are too busy waiting for a world that’s neither “provable” by science or allowed to be scrutinized. And the difficulty is that once we are brave enough to allow our most sacred beliefs to be laid upon the operating table, do we understand Christ in such a way that allows us to ignore the “need” to defend ourselves, or will we continue to lash out in defense?

I’m not sure if I’m making much sense. But like you, I hope this will generate some discussion none-the-less. Thanks again for the thoughts.

Interesting post and I, for one appreciate the thought and, hopefully, discussion it should stimulate. The primary source of evidence for God as we believe in him is the creation (Romans 1:20), which leaves us open to many interpretations, but also many evidences. Without the stamp of God’s image throughout all creation, scripture would not “self-validate” or have the ring of truth, so to speak. And many of our beliefs are reasonable to most people, though not all of them (resurrection of the dead, miracles, even creation.)

Honestly, I believe that much truth is self-evident to a discerning person, but there is another kind of truth contained in scripture that must be accepted by faith. I believe that we should do our best to present truth as represented in things people may already accept. But I also reflect on the many times that God’s own people rejected his message and messenger and bore the penalty because it didn’t seem believable to them at the time. The only evidence he gave was the messenger or sometimes the evidence was tied up in the fulfillment of the message so that contemporaries had little opportunity to accept it.

I would be interested in more feedback.