Essay 11 (12-6-03)

THE NATURE OF FAITH

Some years ago when I was back at Princeton Seminary for an alumni gathering, I happened to be at table with one of my old professors, a world-renowned scholar. In relating what he been up to lately, he told me of being invited to lecture at Brigham Young University in Utah. He expressed surprise that the Mormons had invited him.

To keep the conversation positive, I thought I should say something good about the Mormons, so I mentioned that I found them good citizens and good neighbors. Then he said, "Yes, if they didn’t have to believe so many crazy things."

I’ve often pondered that line about religion in general: If they didn't have to believe so many crazy things. Admittedly, what is deemed "crazy" to one person is seen as quite plausible to another. To an atheist like Stalin – who described religion as the opium of the people -- the whole gamut of religious faith is irrational.

I’m persuaded that a lack of understanding of what faith is lies behind many of our woes both in the world and in the church, including our tragic divisions. If true faith does not infer the freedom of the will – if people believe what they have to believe, and it is not a decision of their own heart and mind – then Stalin was right in describing it as opium.

Is that where we are in religion today? Does a Muslim believe that Mohammed wrote the Koran and that it is the infallible word of God because that’s what Muslims have to believe? Do Roman Catholics believe that Mary the mother of Jesus was caught up into heaven – body and soul – and never tasted death like the rest of us because that’s what Roman Catholics have to believe? Do some Protestants believe that the Bible is inerrant -- wholly without error -- because "that’s what we fundamentalists believe"? Yes, and do the Mormons believe that the prophet Joseph Smith turned up a new Bible from golden plates that he read by looking into his hat because "you’re not a good Mormon if you don’t"?

To be sure, all these persuasions will say they freely accept these doctrines. No one forces them to be a Muslim or a Roman Catholic or a fundamentalist Protestant or a Mormon. They have freely chosen to be what they are, they would all insist – a premise that may be questioned since most of us are what we are, not from our own free will, but by the circumstance of birth. If you or I had been born in Japan instead of America we would almost certainly be a Shintoist or a Buddhist. And it is altogether possible that if my Princeton professor friend had been born into a Mormon family rather than a Presbyterian one, he too would be a Mormon who has to believe a lot of crazy things.

For the sake of the point I want to make, let’s grant that a person does act out of his or her own free choice in accepting a certain religion. The question remains: Once one freely becomes what he is, does he then leave his brains at the door and accept whatever that religion teaches? Is his or her faith what "I have to believe." It is not unusual to hear one say, "I don’t have to believe that because it is not the official doctrine of my church." Is that not saying that one does have to believe the official doctrines, irrespective of one’s own personal conviction. An astute business man who applies his critical, discerning mind to his business may not do the same with his religion. He thinks as a business man, but not as a religionist.

Is this not coercion rather than true faith? It might be a spiritual, benevolent coercion – after all, we’re talking about religion – but coercion nonetheless. But sometimes fear, superstition, and intimidation are resorted to. If one doesn’t believe particular dogmas, he falls under the condemnation not only of the church, but God as well. History is strewn with such instances of coercion. Muslims have spread their religion by the power of the sword. And the Christians in the Crusades were not all that different.

I place the following propositions about the nature of faith on that table for discussion. If they are valid, they call in question the foregoing view of faith. If your study group discusses them, I would be pleased to hear the results. If I err, teach me.

1. Faith is always based on testimony, and testimony on facts – no testimony, no faith.

This applies to faith generally – faith in a friend, your doctor, your spouse, your country. You believe in your friend because of certain facts you know about him – things he says and does. Facts add up to evidence. Faith does not emanate out of thin air. It is not mystical or esoteric. It is really quite simple: One believes because he has reason to believe. He looks at the facts and weighs the testimony. And the degree of faith is always based on the strength of the evidence. Weak evidence equals weak faith; strong evidence equals strong faith.

In terms of Christian faith a dramatic instance of this is faith in the resurrection of Christ. It is an amazing truth that on Easter morning there was not a single person who believed that Christ would rise from the dead – even though he had plainly told his disciples again and again that it would happen. They had testimony but it was not sufficient to elicit faith. Then there was the empty tomb, the testimony of angels, the appearance of the risen Christ himself, again and again. The evidence was overwhelming, and so their faith was overwhelming. At first unbelievers, they were now ready to die for their faith.

An angel did not inject faith into their hearts. The God of heaven provided facts – what he said or did – and the facts (testimony) produced the faith.

There is a lesson here for us in our claims of faith. What is the evidence for what we say we believe? Is it the "revelation" of a would-be prophet, the encyclical of some pope, the decree of some church council? Is it sheer speculation? Or is it based on the testimony of holy Scripture? The question should always be: How reliable is the evidence? Faith based on speculation or opinion is blind faith, if it be faith at all. No testimony – no reliable facts -- no faith!

2. Christian faith is in a Person, not in doctrines.

This liberating truth may have been the most significant contribution of the Stone-Campbell movement on the American frontier, which was awash with isms of all kinds. Christian faith is in a Person, not in some doctrinal system. One may be mistaken in his understanding of doctrine – including biblical doctrine -- and be right in his relationship to Christ. Faithfulness is devotion and commitment to Jesus Christ as the risen Lord, not loyalty to some doctrinal litmus test.

This is not to say that doctrine is unimportant, or that doctrinal systems do not have some truth, but it is to say that doctrine is often difficult to comprehend and even confusing – because it is theories and opinions about facts rather than facts themselves. The gospel is a message of facts about a Person – his death, burial, and resurrection -- not theories or speculation or theology. That Christ was raised from the dead on the third day, as Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 15:4, is a fact --what God has done. Theories about that fact may or may not be true, but it doesn’t matter, for a theory never saved anybody. It is only facts – what God has said and done through Jesus Christ – that save.

Paul himself is our witness. He lays out a lot of doctrine in the book of Romans – some of which is confusing to the ordinary mind – but in the end he makes it clear that it is facts about Christ (the gospel) that saves, not doctrine – not even his. In Romans 10:9 he lays it out, crystal clear: "If you profess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." That’s it. One is "faithful" when he believes in and commits his life to the facts of the gospel – and never mind whether he is a loyal Mormon, or a devout Catholic, or what his position on the millennium or instrumental music might be.

It is important to emphasize that the gospel is made up of facts, not truths. Facts are of course true, but truths are not facts. Truth is what is; a fact is something said or done. That God exists is a truth, but if it ended there, there would be no salvation. The God that exists did something – he gave his own son for the salvation of the world, a fact. Truths do not save, however important they may otherwise be. Salvation is only in what God has said or done (facts). And that is what faith is – believing and trusting in what God has done through Christ. There is no grace in the truth that God exists. The grace comes in what God has said and done.

3. The source for faith is in the authority of God, the court for faith is the human conscience.

This is true of faith in general. If we have faith in what modern science and technology can do, it is because of what God has done in those areas. If we have faith in a friend, it is because of what God has done in his life. All truth is God's truth. He is all and in all. All faith is ultimately grounded in the authority of God.

Whether our faith is sincere – an absolute condition for a right relationship with God -- has a final court of appeal, the human conscience. If we are hypocritical in our profession or engaging in self-deceit, God doesn’t have to condemn us, our conscience does. If we believe what we want to believe, or what suits our prejudices – irrespective of solid evidence – we have our own conscience to face as well as God. The apostle John lays down a stunning truth when he says, "If our heart condemns us, God is greater than our hearts, and knows all things," and then adds, "If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God" (1 John 3:20-21).

The disturbing truth is that if we play deceitful games with our conscience – the voice of God within us – and do not have a love for truth, God may send a strong delusion that we may believe a lie and be damned (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12). If we are willing to be brainwashed and "have to believe a lot of crazy things," God may not only allow it but help us along. He may accommodate us by sending lies and delusions – perhaps through the agency of some church! In the end we might be surprised how much of this there is the religious world today – poor, deluded souls who are the way they are because they do not have a love for truth, including truth about themselves. It is a fearful thing to practice self-deceit.

So my Princeton friend doesn’t have to pass judgment on those who "have to believe a lot of crazy things." Judgment is not in our hands, for we do not know the heart and mind of others. We may rightly believe that unwillful ignorance is excusable before God, for there is still sincerity; and that willful ignorance is inexcusable, because of the absence of sincerity. But only God can make that call – along with the deep recesses of one’s conscience.

[TOP].