Perhaps the greatest loss in our society has been the ability to debate intelligently and respectfully. Anyone who paid the slightest attention to the 2016 election season could see this truth in action. Here at A Reasoning Faith, one of our goals is to model both intellect and respect in our posts in the hope that these characteristics will carry over to our readers in their own debating endeavors. So we thought it might be helpful to lay out the framework within which we establish our positions on secular issues.

Responding to challenging questions requires that we first establish baseline standards. Here at A Reasoning Faith, our baseline is the Word of God – specifically the 1611 King James Version of The Holy Bible. We believe it to be the most accurate English reflection of the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts.

From that baseline we extend a few basic spiritual and logical truths to establish our decision-making framework:

1. Though Biblical truths are constant and most effectively revealed by the Holy Spirit, interpretation of those truths lies at least in part within the human mind. We either accept or reject the Spirit’s guidance in interpreting the Word, a decision which can only be assessed within ourselves. It is therefore not only unlikely but nigh unto impossible for Godly, reasonable people to agree 100% when it comes to studying God’s Word. It is therefore not only logical but imperative to keep an open mind when discussing any non-doctrinal issue (i.e. those not wholly foundational to the Christian faith).
2. So-called “gray areas” exist only as human constructs. Whenever and wherever a gray area is encountered, this point has been reached because a Scriptural or logical truth was violated at some prior point. Both clear right and clear wrong exist in every situation, though gray areas generally require an extensive “wading-through” process to get to them. In these efforts, we look for the most basic root causes for the issue in question.
3. Science, Mathematics, and the Scientific Method are our most powerful analytic and evaluative tools outside of Scripture. Verifiable and repeatable conclusions reached via the use of these tools must not be questioned, provided they do not directly contradict Scriptural truths. Whenever they do, we must reexamine both our secular methodology and our Scriptural interpretation for possible errors. In the event no errors are found, we assume the Word correct and our secular methodology erroneous.
4. As the founding document for the United States, The Declaration of Independence should be considered superior to the Constitution. We hold this to be another self-evident truth, for without the prior establishment of an independent nation, the Constitution used to govern that nation would be irrelevant.
5. The Constitution of the United States is the foundational document for governance of the nation. It is subservient only to The Declaration of Independence to this end.
6. Both The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are products of man. We therefore consider them subservient to The Holy Bible. Where these governing documents part from Scriptural truths, we must follow Scripture and forsake the governing documents. This is true civil disobedience.
7. As a sound conscience is developed under both spiritual and secular influences, the path dictated by conscience may be followed in decision making, but only in the absence of a higher direct authority pertinent to the question at hand. The influence of the Holy Spirit renders conscience a higher authority than logic, which is a human mental construct; however the influence of the secular world renders conscience lower than governing documents. For the above reasons, it is crucial to maintain as clear a conscience as possible in order to better influence the decision-making process.
8. For us at A Reasoning Faith, then, the process of decision-making is guided by the following order of authority.
   1. The Holy Bible
   2. The Declaration of Independence
   3. The Constitution
   4. Conscience
   5. Logic
   6. Societal expedience
   7. Personal expedience

©2016 A Reasoning Faith