Faith
Faith and Knowledge
We often use the words 'faith' and 'belief' quite casually: "I have faith that my team will win on Sunday." "Though I can't be sure, I really believe that Sam had good intentions." The sense here is a general, rough-and-ready belief that something will happen or is true. But we also use these words -- especially 'belief' -- with a bit more strength: "I believe in the Second Amendment; I vote accordingly." "I've listened to the case against the defendant and believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty." Here, we're standing strong: Not only are we quite convinced -- certain even -- that the belief in question is true. We're also unapologetic about speaking and acting in line with that belief.
What about religious faith or belief? Many non-religious people think of faith either as simply non-rational or as positively irrational. Either it is a subjective, emotional, private affair along the lines of one's choice of music; or, it is blind belief accepted in the face of overwhelming reasons against it. That's of course not how religious people see things: They see faith in terms of knowledge. What they believe is true and they're justified in thinking so. While most wouldn't appeal to intellectual reasons per se, they still have reasons and good ones at that. "Look at the night sky! Watch a newborn baby! See the rain coming in over the mountains! Open your eyes, man! Surely God exists!" "The Bible is God's Word. It's stood the test of time. It testifies to itself." "God has been so good to me. I've experienced His work in my life. I know that I can trust Him."
How should an intellectual, someone committed to the life of the mind, think about this, about religious faith? It seems to me that she should grant the starting point of religious people -- that faith can be a kind of knowledge. It would be presumptuous to do otherwise. Millions and millions of people, down through the years and across myriad cultures, have thought so. Only Enlightenment positivism on the one hand, and postmodernism on the other, stand in the way, intellectually speaking, of such a recognition. But why should we grant the positivist or the postmodernist the benefit of the doubt rather than the person of faith? I can't see why.
This is not at all to say that a particular religious claim requires no justification. Quite the contrary. Many religious claims are diametrically opposed -- e.g., the Muslim view of God versus that of Christians; hence they can't all be true. Moreover, it could turn out that, though faith could be a kind of knowledge, it just happens to be the case that true and justified religious beliefs are nowhere to be found. However that may be, the following is clear: The very desire by religious folk -- that we take serious their perspective that faith can be a kind of knowledge -- demands that we ask about the justification of a particular religious belief. Otherwise we're disrespecting both the belief and the believer.
What about the Christian intellectual? How does he fit within all of this? What should his perspective and approach be? Well, he's obviously already committed to the view that Christian faith gives us knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. As such, he also believes that particular Christian beliefs are justified. Evidently, he should take as primary tasks the explanation of these beliefs and the demonstration of their justifiedness -- along the lines of what is described in A Christian Philosophy.
Aspects of Christian faith: quae and qua, creditur and vivitur
What does specifically Christian faith involve? Theologians have distinguished between two senses of the word 'faith'. (1) Using Latin terms, they call the first fides quae creditur, or, "the faith which is believed." The reference here is to the content of faith, to what a believer believes. Thus, the Apostles' Creed is a classic statement of Christian fides quae: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord..."
On the other hand, there is the fides qua creditur, or, "the faith with which one believes." The reference here is to the act of believing itself: after all, a person who is a believer is believing. This act includes all of the personal aspects of genuine faith and worship, in particular those of the emotions and the will. It also entails an attitude, a stance, an engagement toward God and toward the fides quae, the content of faith. Moreover, in this act, he is also being acted upon. For God meets him in worship.
Obviously, the two aspects of faith -- content and act, quae and qua -- are mutually informing. One's practice of faith is deeply influenced by what one believes her faith teaches. And the content of one's faith usually ends up resembling what her practice presupposes. Finally, we can also say that fides quae and fides qua must result in fides quae vivitur: faith which is lived. For, genuine, heartfelt believing in something always issues in a way of life.
Merely Christian faith
Even a cursory knowledge of Christianity through the centuries and around the world reveals a kaleidoscopic range of beliefs and expressions of belief among those who claim Jesus Christ as Lord. (2) From the Syriac Orthodox Church to Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church to Seventh Day Adventists, the Church of Scotland to Nigerian Pentecostalism -- the diversity is staggering. Is there some "core" that's common to them all? Is there an "essence" of Christianity?
In his epoch-making book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis describes and defends what he takes to be this essence or core. The book itself is a lovely romp through classic Christian belief and praxis. But it is in the Preface that he gives his views on the idea of an essence or core of Christianity, what he of course calls "mere" Christianity. He says that it is "the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times." He describes it as "agreed, or common, or central..." Though some disparagingly call it "a vague and bloodless H.C.F. [highest common factor]," it "turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all." He finds that at the "centre" of each Christian communion (i.e., branch or denomination)
We often use the words 'faith' and 'belief' quite casually: "I have faith that my team will win on Sunday." "Though I can't be sure, I really believe that Sam had good intentions." The sense here is a general, rough-and-ready belief that something will happen or is true. But we also use these words -- especially 'belief' -- with a bit more strength: "I believe in the Second Amendment; I vote accordingly." "I've listened to the case against the defendant and believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty." Here, we're standing strong: Not only are we quite convinced -- certain even -- that the belief in question is true. We're also unapologetic about speaking and acting in line with that belief.
What about religious faith or belief? Many non-religious people think of faith either as simply non-rational or as positively irrational. Either it is a subjective, emotional, private affair along the lines of one's choice of music; or, it is blind belief accepted in the face of overwhelming reasons against it. That's of course not how religious people see things: They see faith in terms of knowledge. What they believe is true and they're justified in thinking so. While most wouldn't appeal to intellectual reasons per se, they still have reasons and good ones at that. "Look at the night sky! Watch a newborn baby! See the rain coming in over the mountains! Open your eyes, man! Surely God exists!" "The Bible is God's Word. It's stood the test of time. It testifies to itself." "God has been so good to me. I've experienced His work in my life. I know that I can trust Him."
How should an intellectual, someone committed to the life of the mind, think about this, about religious faith? It seems to me that she should grant the starting point of religious people -- that faith can be a kind of knowledge. It would be presumptuous to do otherwise. Millions and millions of people, down through the years and across myriad cultures, have thought so. Only Enlightenment positivism on the one hand, and postmodernism on the other, stand in the way, intellectually speaking, of such a recognition. But why should we grant the positivist or the postmodernist the benefit of the doubt rather than the person of faith? I can't see why.
This is not at all to say that a particular religious claim requires no justification. Quite the contrary. Many religious claims are diametrically opposed -- e.g., the Muslim view of God versus that of Christians; hence they can't all be true. Moreover, it could turn out that, though faith could be a kind of knowledge, it just happens to be the case that true and justified religious beliefs are nowhere to be found. However that may be, the following is clear: The very desire by religious folk -- that we take serious their perspective that faith can be a kind of knowledge -- demands that we ask about the justification of a particular religious belief. Otherwise we're disrespecting both the belief and the believer.
What about the Christian intellectual? How does he fit within all of this? What should his perspective and approach be? Well, he's obviously already committed to the view that Christian faith gives us knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. As such, he also believes that particular Christian beliefs are justified. Evidently, he should take as primary tasks the explanation of these beliefs and the demonstration of their justifiedness -- along the lines of what is described in A Christian Philosophy.
Aspects of Christian faith: quae and qua, creditur and vivitur
What does specifically Christian faith involve? Theologians have distinguished between two senses of the word 'faith'. (1) Using Latin terms, they call the first fides quae creditur, or, "the faith which is believed." The reference here is to the content of faith, to what a believer believes. Thus, the Apostles' Creed is a classic statement of Christian fides quae: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord..."
On the other hand, there is the fides qua creditur, or, "the faith with which one believes." The reference here is to the act of believing itself: after all, a person who is a believer is believing. This act includes all of the personal aspects of genuine faith and worship, in particular those of the emotions and the will. It also entails an attitude, a stance, an engagement toward God and toward the fides quae, the content of faith. Moreover, in this act, he is also being acted upon. For God meets him in worship.
Obviously, the two aspects of faith -- content and act, quae and qua -- are mutually informing. One's practice of faith is deeply influenced by what one believes her faith teaches. And the content of one's faith usually ends up resembling what her practice presupposes. Finally, we can also say that fides quae and fides qua must result in fides quae vivitur: faith which is lived. For, genuine, heartfelt believing in something always issues in a way of life.
Merely Christian faith
Even a cursory knowledge of Christianity through the centuries and around the world reveals a kaleidoscopic range of beliefs and expressions of belief among those who claim Jesus Christ as Lord. (2) From the Syriac Orthodox Church to Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church to Seventh Day Adventists, the Church of Scotland to Nigerian Pentecostalism -- the diversity is staggering. Is there some "core" that's common to them all? Is there an "essence" of Christianity?
In his epoch-making book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis describes and defends what he takes to be this essence or core. The book itself is a lovely romp through classic Christian belief and praxis. But it is in the Preface that he gives his views on the idea of an essence or core of Christianity, what he of course calls "mere" Christianity. He says that it is "the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times." He describes it as "agreed, or common, or central..." Though some disparagingly call it "a vague and bloodless H.C.F. [highest common factor]," it "turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all." He finds that at the "centre" of each Christian communion (i.e., branch or denomination)
|
where her truest children dwell... each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.
|
Finally, Lewis gives an apt simile. Christianity in its multifaceted splendor is like a large house with many rooms. The rooms are the various communions, branches, denominations, and so on. And "mere" Christianity is like "a hall out of which doors open into several rooms." (3)
Many today would find Lewis' belief in an essence of Christianity far too optimistic. The differences between various groups, each taking the name 'Christian', are so great that, in their view, it is better to speak of Christianities rather than Christianity. Perhaps the best that can be said is that these groups, all falling under the heading Christianity, can all be traced to the historical person Jesus of Nazareth. (The fact that some communions are convinced that others are completely outside of "the True Church" plays to this skeptical paradigm well.)
For my part, I must side with Lewis. Perhaps I am too idealistic, too hopeful. But I think that a core set of Christian beliefs and expressions of belief do exist. I find these grounded in the Scriptures, understood fairly and fittingly, and in the history of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Church. I take the ancient Creeds -- particularly the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Chalcedonian Definition -- to be definitive statements of what "mere" Christianity entails in terms of belief. I also believe in "theological progress" -- the idea that Christians' understanding of theological truth may increase over time even if the truth itself remains the same.
Finally, whatever "mere" Christianity turns out to be, I take it to be tightly circumscribed -- which is to say, of the essence. Christians take all sorts of things as essential to Christianity -- from views on sexuality to perspectives on politics to predictions about the end of the world. Many of these just don't stand up to scrutiny. Some are compatible with faith, perhaps valuable as an expression of Christianity though not a necessary component. Some in fact turn out to be contra the faith. From an intellectual perspective, it is always better to have fewer things to defend. Draining the bathwater makes holding onto the baby much easier. From the perspective of love, it is difficult to believe that a God who loves us enough to send us His Son would fail to follow through on clearly revealing what faith in that Son involves.
Have no doubt about it, though, separating the wheat of "mere" Christianity from the chaff of all the stuff Christians (who are human after all) have attached to it is extremely hard. Seeking the "positive [and] pungent" while avoiding the "vague and bloodless" is not for the faint of heart. Not only is the intellectual effort significant. The "slings and arrows" of outraged fellow believers can fall thick and fast. To go about this task requires us to first consider the notion of Christian Understanding.
Many today would find Lewis' belief in an essence of Christianity far too optimistic. The differences between various groups, each taking the name 'Christian', are so great that, in their view, it is better to speak of Christianities rather than Christianity. Perhaps the best that can be said is that these groups, all falling under the heading Christianity, can all be traced to the historical person Jesus of Nazareth. (The fact that some communions are convinced that others are completely outside of "the True Church" plays to this skeptical paradigm well.)
For my part, I must side with Lewis. Perhaps I am too idealistic, too hopeful. But I think that a core set of Christian beliefs and expressions of belief do exist. I find these grounded in the Scriptures, understood fairly and fittingly, and in the history of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Church. I take the ancient Creeds -- particularly the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Chalcedonian Definition -- to be definitive statements of what "mere" Christianity entails in terms of belief. I also believe in "theological progress" -- the idea that Christians' understanding of theological truth may increase over time even if the truth itself remains the same.
Finally, whatever "mere" Christianity turns out to be, I take it to be tightly circumscribed -- which is to say, of the essence. Christians take all sorts of things as essential to Christianity -- from views on sexuality to perspectives on politics to predictions about the end of the world. Many of these just don't stand up to scrutiny. Some are compatible with faith, perhaps valuable as an expression of Christianity though not a necessary component. Some in fact turn out to be contra the faith. From an intellectual perspective, it is always better to have fewer things to defend. Draining the bathwater makes holding onto the baby much easier. From the perspective of love, it is difficult to believe that a God who loves us enough to send us His Son would fail to follow through on clearly revealing what faith in that Son involves.
Have no doubt about it, though, separating the wheat of "mere" Christianity from the chaff of all the stuff Christians (who are human after all) have attached to it is extremely hard. Seeking the "positive [and] pungent" while avoiding the "vague and bloodless" is not for the faint of heart. Not only is the intellectual effort significant. The "slings and arrows" of outraged fellow believers can fall thick and fast. To go about this task requires us to first consider the notion of Christian Understanding.
Footnotes:
(1) For example, N.T. Wright: "Theologians have discussed the meaning of 'faith', or 'belief', and have located it on a scale somewhere between the English concepts of 'trust' and 'assent', sometimes using the Latin tags fides qua (the faith with which one believes) and fides quae (the faith which one believes) to distinguish the two." From, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 258.
(2) This is as true within evangelical Christianity as anywhere: Such Christians -- especially those in democratic, consumerist America -- vary wildly in the details of what they believe and how they go about believing. (i) In terms of their fides quae, some emphasize classic Christian statements such as the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, or the various Reformation confessions. Others point to the "the faith delivered once and for all" to their particular denomination or group: Southern Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Assembly of God, Word of Faith, or other. Other, more creative types, may "go deeper" into the Bible and find all kinds of "content" that Christians in the preceding two millennia were never able to discover, including, for example: detailed descriptions of end-time events; specific prescriptions for politics; ideal business and financial practices; precise rules on sexual behavior; full-blown explanations of human psychology and sociology; scientific accounts of cosmogony; histories of the ancient Near East; inter alia. (ii) As to their fides qua: Those who fall within the broad stream of Pentecostalism emphasize the immediate presence and work of the Holy Spirit. Others look to the actions of Jesus and the Apostles as examples of, or to the divinely bestowed "authority of the believer" as providing remit for, various practices Christians should engage in today, including divine healing, the casting out of demons, prophecy, and other "signs and wonders." Many seek God's presence in passionate worship, especially through music. Other Christians find the loci of their acts of believing in such things as: detailed studies of the Bible, evangelism, missions, helping the poor, serving their community, or social justice.
(3) C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1952). The quotations come from the Preface which runs from page five to page twelve.
Original 12/6/14.
(1) For example, N.T. Wright: "Theologians have discussed the meaning of 'faith', or 'belief', and have located it on a scale somewhere between the English concepts of 'trust' and 'assent', sometimes using the Latin tags fides qua (the faith with which one believes) and fides quae (the faith which one believes) to distinguish the two." From, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 258.
(2) This is as true within evangelical Christianity as anywhere: Such Christians -- especially those in democratic, consumerist America -- vary wildly in the details of what they believe and how they go about believing. (i) In terms of their fides quae, some emphasize classic Christian statements such as the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, or the various Reformation confessions. Others point to the "the faith delivered once and for all" to their particular denomination or group: Southern Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Assembly of God, Word of Faith, or other. Other, more creative types, may "go deeper" into the Bible and find all kinds of "content" that Christians in the preceding two millennia were never able to discover, including, for example: detailed descriptions of end-time events; specific prescriptions for politics; ideal business and financial practices; precise rules on sexual behavior; full-blown explanations of human psychology and sociology; scientific accounts of cosmogony; histories of the ancient Near East; inter alia. (ii) As to their fides qua: Those who fall within the broad stream of Pentecostalism emphasize the immediate presence and work of the Holy Spirit. Others look to the actions of Jesus and the Apostles as examples of, or to the divinely bestowed "authority of the believer" as providing remit for, various practices Christians should engage in today, including divine healing, the casting out of demons, prophecy, and other "signs and wonders." Many seek God's presence in passionate worship, especially through music. Other Christians find the loci of their acts of believing in such things as: detailed studies of the Bible, evangelism, missions, helping the poor, serving their community, or social justice.
(3) C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1952). The quotations come from the Preface which runs from page five to page twelve.
Original 12/6/14.