Faith, Part 2 - Use the Faith, Luke

For the next post in this series, I said we would look at some ways faith is traditionally understood. Before we define them, however, I want to share some thoughts from popular culture that I believe will help make my point.

I assume anyone reading this blog is at least familiar with concepts from the Star Wars films. They are so large an influence in our culture that even my wife, who had not seen them when I married her, was aware of references to the films. Few films have had a large impact on the social fabric of the US. The movies were so popular, President Reagan named a defense initiative after them. They boosted interest in Science Fiction to record heights in the 80's, and the appeal of the movies to so many different types of people caused a shift in Hollywood to put more effort into big budget entertainment films than gripping stories that move and teach.

One of the more well-known concepts that is part of the worldview in Star Wars is the idea of "the force". It is an all-pervasive, encompassing spiritual entity that binds everything in the universe together. If one can train themselves enough to recognize it, they can "use" this force to perform supernatural acts. For example, Luke Sywalker destroys the Death Star with a practically "impossible" laser shot while being tailed by imperial forces. Part of His training involved sensing and responding to attacks without sight. It was "the force" that let him know what to do. Later, on various occasions Jedi are shown to plant thoughts in the minds of their opponents using the force. Some people are even more naturally in touch with this "force", such as Anakin Skywalker (who had an usually high count of midi-chlorians, or sub-cellular organisms that detect "the force").

However, the primary means in the movies by which one recognizes "the force" is, quite simply, acknowledging it's existence and learning to grasp the full philosophy implied. If one can "use the force" well enough, they are able to achieve things beyond what seems possible. They can even eventually "become part of the force", as did characters like Yoda and Qui-Gonn when they passed .

In case this sounds strange to you, it should. It is a worldview heavily influenced by Eastern thought, as both film scholars and George Lucas himself acknowledge. It is totally foreign to western thought. Achieving control over nature through mental training is a byproduct of belief in a system where humans are connected to a central source of life (often nature) - which is also God. In essence, God is part of the makeup of everything and everyone, so supernatural ability is merely dormant in all of us who would recognize it and embrace it.

As Christians, of course, we know that God is not in everything, but rather he created everything. He only offers to impart his spirit to believers, and the natural world is not God; it is only controlled and designed by Him. Everything remains subject to God's power and authority, humans included. Supernatural abilities have only been granted to those who needed it in order to validate God's message (Jesus, the apostles, etc.)

By now you're asking yourself - what does this have to do with faith? The answer is simple - an almost identical philosophy seems to influence some people's understanding of the word 'faith'. The more I have seen people try to explain faith, it is not uncommon to hear things that make it sounds like some invisible force that just needs to be embraced to succeed in being a Christian. For instance, have you ever heard phrases like this?

• If you have enough "faith", things will work out for you and you will be healed
• If you just believe God can do it (have "faith"), He will.
• If you don't understand the Bible, or have doubts, you can still have "faith" that it is true.
• I am struggling with my "faith" in God because he doesn't seem close to me

At the root of each of these phrases is an understanding that "faith" is a "force" that we must tap into enough with our minds in order to succeed. If we have enough of this "faith", we will be strong Christians that can, in the minds of some, literally perform miracles such as Jesus and the apostles did. We will succeed against the enemy's attacks and achieve all God has intended for us to do - merely by mentally acknowledging and affirming our belief in God. This, regardless of what that belief is founded in or what substance it has.

In short, this is a "blind" faith, in a force that seems to be the root of all spiritual activity in the universe. As  you may have guessed, my position is that this popular understanding of "faith" is misguided. It is insufficient to explain true faith, and results partially from a failure to put scriptural references to "faith" in their proper context. I don't know when "faith" took on this kind of meaning for many (UPDATE: the etymology of the word belief appears to point to a middle-ages time frame), but we must find a way to purge ourselves of this thinking. Not only does it make our beliefs seem analogous to "the force" in Star Wars, it disregards any concept of our faith having a real and reasonable substance. It also seems to ignore a proper application of the word "faith" in all it's contexts.

Allow me to first comment on the aforementioned phrases, to show how they might be problematic.

• If you have enough "faith", things will work out for you and you will be healed
• So, people who are not healed simply didn't want it bad enough? How do you gauge that? Do you want to tell them that?
• If you just believe God can do it (have "faith"), He will
• What about when God doesn't do what is asked - for instance, heal a loved one. Has he failed? Did the person need to spend more effort thinking and praying? Do we really think this applies to everything we want God to do?
• If you don't understand the Bible, or have doubts, you can still have "faith" that it is true.
• What do you do about those doubts? Suppress them? Did God not create us to use our brains? Is there something wrong with doubt itself? Or is unanswered doubt more dangerous?
• I am struggling with my "faith" because God doesn't seem close to me
• Where are we promised that God is to be "close" to us? Or that this has anything to do with "faith"? Was Jesus lacking faith when he quotes Psalm 22 on the cross (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34)?

As you consider these, think more about any common threads with these ideas of faith. Can you think of what people might be doing wrong? As you thinking about that, I will share what my experience has been as I push people to clarify their understanding of the word faith. Most conversations on the topic conclude with this basic understanding:

1. I am experiencing something in life for which the outcome is unseen (I do not know what this outcome will be)
2. God knows what the outcome will be.
3. I believe that God will lead me to an appropriate outcome
4. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1), so my "faith" helps me as I discover the outcome or resolution

In this sense, the "what" of faith has been recognized correctly. It is not as much a magical force in the universe you need enough of. It comes from ourselves, and we need lots of it to see things through in life. But the "why" of faith does not seem to have been taken into account at all. For instance, if I do not know what the outcome of something will be, "why" should I accept #3? Why should I believe God will lead me to an appropriate outcome? Do I need any reason? Could there be any reasons? Would it be wrong to have reasons; would it show I have less faith?

Many people, I think, would quickly say they don't need any reason. Acknowledging God's sovereignty is enough in life to accept that God will do what is right in the situation, if he acts at all. I applaud that kind of faith, but is that all there really is to it? Before we answer that, let's consider how such a person might answer my other questions.

Is there something wrong with wanting a reason to believe in God? The typical responses would imply "yes", if not stating it outright. After all, Thomas wanted a reason to believe in Jesus' resurrection. (John 20:25)  And how did Jesus respond? After giving him the evidence (John 20:27), he makes a statement blessing those who "have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). So clearly, it appears NOT having a reason is better than requesting one.

But the Greek makairos, translated "blessed", implies that honor (reputation) is what is in view here [1].  Jesus is not saying there is an advantage to believing without evidence, but that it is better for your reputation. In other words, it is sufficient for you to be satisfied with evidence you already have, as opposed to demanding excessive evidence. Thomas had the word of 11 other disciples and 3 1/2 years of following Jesus, witnessing his miraculous power. His doubt was completely unwarranted - he had enough evidence that Jesus could be back "in the flesh". After all, he would have witnessed Lazarus return to life earlier in Christ's ministry. In addition to this, consider that what Thomas had seen, in order to believe, was the wounds of the resurrected savior. So those "who have not seen" is not a reference to someone who doesn't have evidence, but someone who doesn't have that specific physical evidence - as many future believers would not. Jesus' reputation and ministry should have sufficed, especially in a culture that valued reputation - it had to be earned carefully, and Jesus had experienced something that would ultimately earn him highest honors - coming back to life without a human intercessor.

So, someone with the typical view of faith may accept God's sovereignty as sufficient. But my question for them is this - how did they come to that point in life? Did they flip a "Trust God" switch on in their brain? Or did they have trials and experiences in life that God saw them through, which slowly built their faith? (did God give them evidence to help eliminate their doubt?) Can they honestly say they never needed a reason to trust God? When you can answer that, it should be clear what my answer is for the final question. Is something wrong with having a reason for faith? Absolutely not! It does not show weakness - it is instead a crucial element of faith to begin with!

In conclusion, there is obviously more to someone's faith than just belief in God. The belief comes from somewhere. Often the evidences are things we take for granted (the Bible's accounts of history, the resurrection of Jesus, testimony of trustworthy individuals) But it is still evidence - and anyone without "faith" is essentially rejecting the evidence. Keep these thoughts in mind for now. In the next post, I will look at how we can use these revelations to more accurately define faith. I'll also use that definition to take a fresh look at the scriptures. Is this "evidence" aspect of faith an invention of mine? Or has it been there all along, under the surface, waiting to be discovered?



[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 47. Print.