What Faith Isn't

6/1/04

I would like to dichotomize the use of the word "faith" by Christians when referring to that which we are asked by God to have in Him. I believe I have already accomplished this in my bias completion of the previous sentence with the phrase "in Him." That seems unfair (and contradictory), so I will define again that what I intend to explain is the crucial difference between concepts that can be thought of as "faith" within Christianity (I really don't want to define what I mean by "Christianity," since I don't really know right now, but I think my audience will understand my intent).

Faith, understood correctly, or better said, understood as that which our creator asks us of us, is a descriptive word. I do admit I feel a bit silly going into what types of words are, since I have a malnourished understanding of the grammar of my native language, so please overlook with kindness my poor selection of words. Faith describes, "what happens when". Faith is to actuate one's trust. Trust is placed in something, or more conclusive, someone, for I assert that even our experiences are knowingly subjective, and therefore it is more conclusive to describe our faith in something, as our faith in our own perception of something. I'll try to get to the crux.

I steal my analogy from a scene in the script of a popular adventure film:

"INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE"
Screenplay by JEFF BOAM
Story by GEORGE LUCAS and MENNO MEYJES

THE GREAT ABYSS

INDY stands in a small opening, just small enough for his shoulders to squeeze through and beyond that a 100 foot drop to the rocks below and 100 feet across, nothing but a rough, stony cliff wall.

BACK TO INDY
He can see nowhere to cross. He looks again to the v-rail Diary.

INDY: "The path of flood. Only in the leap from the lion's head will he prove his worth."

INDY looks around and then he notices that inscribed into the rock above his head is the head of a lion.

INDY: Impossible! Nobody can jump this!

INDY looks down into the Diary and tortures over what it is asking him to do.

BRODY rushes forward and calls to INDY.

BRODY: Indy... Indy, you must hurry!! Come quickly!

BACK TO INDY

INDY (realizing) It's... a leap of faith. Oh, God.

HENRY calls to his son.

HENRY: You must believe, boy. you must... believe.

We see him do it. We see him leap into space. We see that he is in midair. We see that he is not going to make it. His hands claw for the opposite wall but he is going to fall 100 feet to his death. And then-he doesn't! He appears to be held up by thin air as he lands on his hands and knees.

INDY looks around and down and now he figures it out.

Ingeniously, the First Crusaders have painted a pathway to align with the rocks 100 feet below. It is a perfect forced perspective image of the rocks below with lines from a hundred feet continuing six feet below his sight line where his feet are stepping.

It's painted to blend in with the rocks below. Highly evolved camouflage... in perfect alignment with everything we see below.

When INDY leans out to the left or right... that's when he sees the perfect alignment shift that betrays the trick. Indy throws some dirt on the bridge and he crosses it like the first Crusader from the painting over Henry's desk.

Indy crawls through a small opening in the side of the cliff and enters a Temple.

Yes, he crossed the path of flood by faith. But what does this mean? He did not walk on his faith, or was caught by his faith. No, it was the bridge that supported his weight, not his faith. What is meant here by faith, is that he acted upon something, being unaware of how it was to be accomplished. It was his faith, his acting, his actually jumping, which facilitated the use of the unseen bridge in his crossing. The point here being that, in actually, the bridge was always there. His faith didn't produce the bridge. His faith didn't enable the bridge to begin construction, or even enable him to see the bridge (the means by which the promise was fulfilled). This trusting does occur within, and without (can be evident to others, or not evident to others). The actuating can be internal, external, or both, dependent upon the circumstances in which one exercises faith. In general, I could see faith as being something that begins internal, and its affecting works progressively outward as it continues to be actuated. Progressively, because its effects accumulate compound-ly, as branches on a tree, ripples in a pond, steps on your way home. More so, in that faith seems to be the joints (focal points, crucial points) by which the entire mechanism is formed, and seems to play the central role in completing the form of the final thing. Similarly to how it is all the bends and transitions in a form that accomplishes the uniqueness, the manifestation, of what becomes the form. The changes from note to note, or verse to chorus, these things that make something what it is. So with faith: how it facilitates the form.

One can say, "I accomplish all things by faith" unaware of the v-rail Diary, and truly (coincidentally) be supported by the unaware. It will be only a matter of time before such folly will lead to ruin.

When Jesus calmed the wind and waves (Matthew 8:24-27), later to say to those in that boat, "You of little faith," I do not think that he was referring to the disciples' lack of faith to calm the storm themselves, as if they should have been confident enough to do it themselves. He said this in reference to their responding with fear towards him who had done this "great" thing, as if to say, "Haven't you come to trust me yet? Come on guys, I am so trust-worthy. I have the love and concern for you out of which I desire to do such things as quieting the storm around you, and I have the power to accomplish this. Please, trust me." Maybe this applies to what was intended by Jesus in reference to having faith as a mustard seed to move mountains? Not sure yet.

This same concept is supported regarding Peter walking on water (Matthew 14:26-31) given the response, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" Jesus spoke this after Peter responded by "...seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'" I believe that the "little faith" of Peter of which Jesus spoke, was not the lack of faith that Peter had in his ability to walk on water (or even, necessarily in the lack of faith in Jesus's ability to enable him to walk, for he had already been walking miraculously on water, had already experienced first-hand proof that Jesus was able to do it), but in his lack of trust of Jesus to protect and keep him; a child's trust in their father.

Aside: Similarly, it is my faith that enables me to answer these questions (and I truly believe them to be answers and not just excuses or warping the text to fit my vantage) by trusting the character of God enough to keep searching (actuated trust), asking God, through prayer, reflection, and examining the scriptures.

Bottom line: remember who you are trusting.

Luke 17:7-10 NAS

And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and be planted in the sea '; and it would obey you. Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink '? He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'

Similarly here, the analogy of the "unworthy slave" is basically Jesus giving us reason to think soberly of our circumstance, when we, through our faith by trusting our Master, accomplish the great things that He has commanded us. See here, the reason for our sobriety rests upon the work that we did according to His will, His might, so we ought not expect Him to say, "Good job with that; Thanks for doing that." His pleasure lies in our trusting him, our obedience, and this not in the thing that was done (great as they will be through faith), but in our relationship for which it was done.

Matthew 17:16-20 NAS

"I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him."
And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me."
And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.
Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"
And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

I suspect here, that it may have been the disciples' responding to Jesus with, "Why could we not drive it out?" not that, "they could not cure him" that he was frustrated with. How can a small faith do big things? Not because of the scarce potency of that substance of faith that we must produce within us, but because it is that small trust in God that will allow His might to be displayed.

The difficulty here becomes being lead by The Spirit; knowing what it is He is asking of us, speaking to us. Again, we must not collapse on ourselves with the pressure to accurately hear His voice, but keep moving (actuating trust), trusting Him that He does and is speaking to you (and the means by which, possibly unaware.) Does not our good God speak to us? Trust Him.

Almost off the subject:

Regarding what Jesus prayed out loud and was recorded in the gospels about our sins not being forgiven if we do not forgive others. Something I heard Andre Lewis say about this makes great sense. I don't think Jesus was stating a contingency, but a truth. The difficulty with understanding some of God's statements is that he is exposed to a larger time frame than humans (through His intimacy with His Father?). What he is able to see, or maybe more simply said, what he fully knows, is the effect that grace has on the receiver. Grace breeds graciousness (the spiraling upwards, the anti-entropy, the feedback-loop). Those who have experienced grace, will express grace. He's giving us a grace thermometer, a litmus test, of our relationship with God. It's as if He's looking across time and sees those who actually have experienced grace, and are therefore in the necessary relationship by which we are forgiven, do in actually (his time frame) express grace by forgiving others (a no-brainer for those who have tasted it), and letting us in on something very beneficial for those of us who will be deceived into trusting in our own ability to relate with God as one righteous by essentially saying that if we find ourselves not forgiving, it is due to our not having been forgiven. If you find yourself in such a position, do not despair, trust God.

Proposition: If there is something that we are not able to comprehend in regards our Christian faith, we are able to comprehend why it is that we cannot. We need not always know why in order to proceed sincerely in our relationship to our Creator-Lover (though at times we may), but, if we ask, I believe He will show us.

I suspect that "...in proportion to your faith..." (Romans 12:6) is a reference to the completeness of your accurate understanding of God's character. I find that the more I understand of God's character, the more fully I am convinced of his goodness, the more I am actuating my trust in him. And this makes sense to me: that I can only be expected to place as much of my trust in one I know as much to be trustworthy. My part in this is the risk I take when choosing to experience more of that which I am yet unaware; to continue to precede in those unanswered questions, as if our relationship tracks more closely to a velocity than an entity (I can't think now what I mean by something other than a velocity in terms to describe it, so entity will do). One can be said of to have "great faith," by ones looking backwards to what they have accomplished, but this only speaks to the past state of their relationship (between God and the one). Actuating ones trust as evident in any event could here be seen as a discrete slice of the thing itself. For one to learn to actuate trust, or put into practice the continuation of actuating trust might be what is metaphorically referred to as "abiding in Christ" (as in 1 John 4:13). For one to continually actuate trust is a flow of life so thoroughly completing/perfecting, that they are able to overcome any possible and unknown suffering (through their trust in who God is, of his character, not in how, when, why, etc.).

All that is to say, do not allow yourself to feel condemned and overwhelmed, you of little faith, but be free to continue precisely where you are in order to effect such changes as you could only ever be expected (by your creator) to actuate. I propose that quote, "in proportion to your faith," could also be communicated as, "in as much as who you understand God to be." I do not say, " in as much as your understanding of who God is," for I am confident that the God of my understanding is a far cry from the God of whom I understand. One's faith is the effect of their theology (regardless if they call it by that name); of their exposure to His character. Always having the capacity (all of what they need) to continue on from where they are to a fuller understanding, and lacking the expectation by God on them to take Him for who they do not know him to be. This may be where we [Testaments] come in. We can increase people understanding of God through a transfer of their trust in us to their trust in whom we say is trustworthy. Trust, in this sense, is associative.

The associative property of trust is the mechanism by which it is reasonable for one to believe that miracles occur. It is what allows one, with full confidence and reason, on this side of the wall to call to one between the walls, and understand what is happening on the other side. The reasonability of such a stance is fully contingent upon the character of the one offering the claim, not within the claim itself.

Possibly what is needed is a unified theory of philosophy, not science, taking into account existentialism and logic (spirit and truth, perhaps). Or maybe, better stated, the holy grail of the scientific unified theory is found where is displayed the convergence between relations [of beings] and natural law. The last thing I'd like to do is enlarge the "God of the Gaps" mentality, and here totally admit that "God's willing" as an explanation for the strong nuclear force may just as accurately be applied to all natural laws, and therefore its validity does not really upon the aesthetics of the pictures men paint of it (the finesse with which it can be described or ease with which understood). That said, what could be said of a thing if we see it react in such a way in all known circumstances, save one? Is it just a matter of waiting until we are aware of more contradictions within our models? Do we know of any other examples where our model seems stable but for one place?

I believe that we always have everything we need in order to accomplish that which God desires of us. "Everything" is describing our resources. While these resources do include things that exist within time and space, our time, money, and physical abilities, some dimensions of our resources exist within that which we call our self (our beings'); facets such as our emotions and intellect, that influence our wills (the "mechanism" used in our deciding something). I would like to point out that one of these resources is our understanding of who God is. I cannot image our Creator calling us to believe him as being something that we have no reason to believe him to be. He knows better than we our understanding of who he is, and by function of our finiteness, we both know that this [our understanding of who he is] will continue to be incomplete until we see him and become as he is (1 John 3:2). Therefore, consider your emotional response (your "heart") when asked to act according to what people (yourself included) say God desires of you. If it is contrary to who you understand God to be, ask God to show you more of himself regarding this area to enable you to act faithfully (to actuate your trust in Him, not in your knowingly flawed concept of Him).

God is showing me more and more how and why He is doing what He is doing, in order that I may know more and more who is doing what is being done, that I might trust my daddy.

I suspect that several of these facets of appropriately understanding "faith" can also be appropriately applied to "authority," in regards to that type which we have of God, and which God asks of us to dispense; that it does not negate the strength of the authority when one is "unconfident," or doubts, but more fully relies in its actuation, and not the emotion with which actuated.

9/16/04

In response to listening to a talk Graham Cooke spoke 10/11/01 "The Year of Favor." A point he made was to distinguish between obtaining favor and actuating favor: not that it is lacking and we must ask for favor to obtain it, but that when we begin thanking God for favor, and asking for His favor on behalf of others (who may not already have it), we see its effects. I do like this distinction [think it accurate] and wholly contingent upon the reality that one may have favor without knowing such. This reminds me of the freedom that I do believe we have, even when we're unaware. A major point being NOT that we must first procure the confidence [extinguish doubt] in order to obtain the effects of favor (placing the weight on what we can produce), but only to actuate. It is NOT our faith that produces anything (a misuse of the word - in this application), but that it is a description of the process that occurs when obtaining something (covering the range of the process - chronologically - from before the expected effects are brought about, until after they are brought about). The Israelites, once in the desert and brought out of slavery, where actually free (despite a decrease in pleasure/comfort). They did NOT have to believe it or have any amount of confidence in this IN ORDER to bring it in to actuality. However, they did have the option/freedom to return to slavery. Also, they could choose to act upon their freedom, and obtain the desired effects, and likewise, they could choose otherwise and not obtain them. Yes, it was by faith, for they did not see the expected effects before acting congruently, and they would only see them after having faith [actuating trust].

Actuating = the process of bringing into action
Trust = to believe that which is unseen; to take that which is unseen as if it were seen

It would be useful to research/examine those areas of unseen actuality (are we really free? do we really have favor? is God really trustworthy?) PRIOR to (or in conjunction with) encouraging others to actuate trust [have faith].