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].

Extreme Grace: The Danger of Christianity

There are at least as many different reasons why people become Christians, as there are reasons why people get married. Furthermore, there are as many different motivations for maintaining one's Christianity, as there are different states of marriages. I submit to you, as one married, that a marriage can be beneficial to both spouses, and so can one's Christianity be beneficial to Creation and Creator.

Why become married? Why stay married? The questions that I intend to raise are aimed at reflecting your motivations towards engaging in relationship, and to the end that they become healthy. I claim that the strength of my persuasion is grounded in sober, snot-on-your-sleeve, legitimacy. Not in strength of an optimistic will, or with a desire to paint the bruised as beautiful, but with as honest and sincere a wide-eyed look as possible.

What would your response be to an unfaithful spouse? If your spouse slept with someone else, and wanted reconciliation, would you be willing to attempt it? How willing are you to let your spouse know that though they were unfaithful to you, you would be faithful to them? Do you think that that would encourage an affair, or affirm safety and encourage intimacy? I think your response would depend on your relationship, and - maybe even more so - on your own character.

Now please keep in mind, what I propose to you to be an instrument with which to gauge your relationships (your response to these questions), works only in one direction. Like most gauges, for the speed of your car or the temperature of your oven, you cannot apply this in reverse. When you see the dial read "100°C" in the pot of water on the stove, that tells you the water is hot. When you see the needle buried in the red, you know you are going fast. But if you want to have hot water, you can't simply move the dial to "100°C" and expect the water to get hot, it is only a gauge, not the source of heat. I believe we Christians are the worst at applying this, since we've been given so many gauges through scripture. Once we identify ourselves as Christian, we now admit to what we ought to be, and try desperately (and sincerely) to make it so. We read in 1 John 4:21 that, "the one who loves God should love his brother also." And so, being unwilling to refute our love for God, we work on making loving our brothers a reality. This facet of how to apply the standard is what I take Jesus to be referring to in Luke 11:34 regarding letting your eye be clear. In other words, he is telling us to look at ourselves clearly - honestly - in order for our lives to be marked by truth. Otherwise, if we aren't honest about who we are, we will be deceived and full of deceit. Like having a glass full of liquid: if you don't honestly show it's contents through a clean vessel, but dress a wine bottle as a pint of milk, you will not be able to do rightly with it. If you don't love your brothers, you don't love your brothers! Let's at least start there, with an honest assessment of your contents, then you will be able to do rightly with it. In a less extreme example, if you sell yourself as compassionate and kind, but hide bitterness and envy, it's only a matter of time before someone buys it to drink down themselves. And when, finding the taste of gall rather unlike the wine they expected, spew it out and are worse off then without. There is a time and a purpose for both motor oil and mother's milk, but to confuse them is toxic.

We are free to sin. Yes, even we Christians - those who have accepted the marriage proposal of the Bridegroom - are permitted by our fiancé to be unfaithful to him, while he has promised to remain faithful to us. He does not even hide this fact from us, but forecasts it for thousands of years as documented in scripture. The writings of the prophet Hosea expound upon this point. And I believe that when we have sincerely engaged this reality of our freedom in Christ - that even though we may be unfaithful to Him, He will remain faithful to us - we will observe ourselves motivated to respond in like fashion (those who have experienced grace will express grace). And I believe our human insecurities do a disservice to God's intent when we cut His graciousness short but adding disclaimers and warnings to it. Grace must remain wholly gracious in order to "affect" the desired response. This is not to say that disclaimers and warnings are illegitimate, just insufficient in regards to motivating one towards the intended relationship between God and Human (what God has intended for our relationship).

I have often heard the question posed (and admittedly asked this myself) regarding a dating relationship, "How far is too far?" Like asking, "How much harder must I depress the gas pedal in order to overcome an empty tank?" the question itself crumbles under the weight of its assumptions. The reason why it may seem difficult to approach the "How far" question is because it is asking intellectually for what can only appropriately be responded to relationally. What is really being asked in, "How far is too far"? Too far for what? Not, too far for what's humanly possible, or too far for what God will allow to exist, but more along the lines of too far to remain sinless. I think that this question is similar to asking your spouse, "How far is too far?" regarding intimacy with someone who is not your spouse. How would you imagine their response to be? Would they begin to go into specifics regarding particular acts of affections that are and are not acceptable? Might they suggest that handholding is alright, but anything more than a peck on the cheek is too far? No way! The presumption of the question itself would insult and call into question the state of your relationship. What is desired from your spouse is your own motivation in itself to protect the intimacy of your marriage, and not the ramifications for exceeding the limits. If it's the penalties of being unfaithful that motivates you towards faithfulness, the intent of the relationship is lost. In the same way, if your motivation for faithfulness to Christ our Bridegroom is fear of the penalties of unfaithfulness, I insist that God's intent for the state of your relationship is not being fulfilled.

That is not to say that all is lost - that the water on the stove cannot be made to boil - but just that it is not hot enough. Here, then, do not attempt to tweak the dial to read "100°C" by white-knuckling your will towards a responsive heart of gratitude. What then? Turn up the flame (I'm pretending I know more about this than I actually do, for here, at the crux of what I'm getting at, I know the least about how to enflame my own heart). I think it starts with trusting God's character enough to seek support of this (like reading the letter that Paul wrote to the Romans six or seven times, slowing down to pay attention to what's said in chapter 8).

Now I must admit, our relationship with God is unlike our marriages in that the range of our maturity is much broader between when we start with God and when we start with our spouse. We have a running start into our marriages, already knowing how to relate with other humans and having extensive experience with it, already establishing who the other person is (to a large degree) and already having a fairly specific expectations for what a marriage will be like. With God, we may begin our relationship as Spiritual infants, in need of mothers and fathers to hand feed us God's Word, little to no expectations or examples regarding what our relationship will look like, and even fighting the process as a child untrusting of their parents intentions to keep them clothed and bathed. For this reason, I do think it quite appropriate that God bring us awkwardly, against our full will to the dance floor, perhaps kicking and whining with the pain of the fear of punishment, as a teacher disciplining their pupil. But for no reason is that intended to be the state of the dance, if such interaction could even yet be called a dance. "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1 NAS). The dance of Lovers' is a shared pleasure.

Does the extremity of God's graciousness towards us who trust Jesus to fulfill the requirement of the law make us dangerous people? Unabashedly, yes.

There does remain a tension if left at this. This tension is not, "but still, you should try and do good," no, that is the role of The Spirit in the life of one of grace, and I fully trust The Spirit to do what The Spirit strongly desires and is entirely capable of. I believe this tension is the fair warning (preparation) and encouragement that if you are to go by way of grace, you will not remain as you are. And this is good news indeed. Again, if here one wishes to give some persuasion to support the goodness of this claim, I offer that you are fumbling in clothes that aren't your own (that you are both incapable and truly unwilling to love in such a way - leave their spirit to The Spirit, and you testify as a Testament). The further in you go, the more utterly what will be destroyed. The "what" here is very appropriately not you, but that which you have come to love up to this point (that which you have come to exchange yourself for) will burn away (what is more gentle than a flame?) to reveal a you more unique, more lovely, and, what's better, more loving.

In short, death is to come. This will be enjoyed entirely.

The Components of Self

Will: creates choices; faculty of decision making

Mind
(Gauge) Reason: gauge/measurement of rationality [logical or illogical; true or false] [Responds]
(Projector) Imagination: faculty of projecting thought [Effects and is Effected]
(Projection) Thought: language of the mind; mind-image [Experience]

Soul
(Gauge) Heart: gauge/measurement of morality [right or wrong; good or evil] [Responds]
(Projector) Spirit: faculty of projecting emotion; emotes [Effects and is Effected]
(Projection) Emotion: language of the heart; soul-feeling [Experience]

Body
(Gauge) Body: gauge/measurement of comfort "temporality" [pleasure or pain] [Responds]
(Projector) Flesh: faculty of projecting sensation [Effects and is Effected]
(Projection) Sensation: language of the body; body-feeling [Experience]

The Self

1-2-3) In Process...

I start with asking, "what is valuable?" Value is placed upon something by someone. I ask, "what does God value?" God values people. I ask, "why people?" Because we relate. I envision that God experienced a relationship of a quality wherein each being was pleasured by the others, and that out of a motivation for other beings to experience this quality [good] of relationship, God created beings capable of doing so. I propose that this type of relationship, wherein each member benefits from all others, is most valuable and is the primary motivation for all of creation.

The components necessary for this type of relationship are (a) autonomous beings and (b) actuated trust. Trust is the hinge that connects two beings, and relationship is the movement resulting from its actuation. In order for a being to be autonomous, it must (a1) have a self and (a2) be capable of choosing [freewill]. In order for trust to be actuated, there must (b1) be an opportunity to trust and (b2) the ability to trust. In order for the opportunity to trust, there must be the possibility for failure: for to trust someone is to propose that another being - who is out of your control - will meet your expectations on a particular account. Trust is an internal posture of one's will; it is to say to yourself, "I take it that they will pay me back." You choose to assume something. In order for this to occur, you must have an incomplete understanding, there must be unknowns. Once that which is trusted is acted upon over time, faith is exhibited.

The game show "Wheel of Fortune" illustrates these components. Each player begins with in incomplete understanding of the word or phase yet to be revealed. Given the limited information about the puzzle, they propose letters that will progress their understanding, either confirming or condemning their suspicions. If they trust their suspicions, and, offering the appropriate letters, find there expectations to be meet, they will grown in confidence of the accuracy of their guess (all the time undeniably unsure). Here it can be seen where a player, expressing faith, offers a guess, does not produce the effects of the revealed letters meeting their expectations, but rather enables this congruency. The point here being that when one has faith in something, it is not the magnitude of conviction or confidence that affects the outcome, but the actuality of that which is trusted in. It should be pointed out, however, that if that which one expresses faith towards is actual, the pattern of satisfied expectations will occur, and confidence will result.

So, in order for this most valuable type of relationship to occur, there must be the possibility for unmet expectations [treachery]. This makes way for injustice. In order for even the prospect of justice, there must be some understanding of the expectations of others: an unwritten code, a "common sense" understanding (i.e. do no harm). In order for justice, there must be a law (written or unwritten) describing the expectations of others. What motivation exists for one to choose justly? The fear of pain and the anticipation of pleasure.

3) Actuation (What is Faith?)

Faith is actuated trust. Trust can be placed in that which is true [actual], or in that which is not true (to various degrees of actuality). The more actual what is trusted, the more actual what will result. The more accurate your guess of the unrevealed phrase on "Wheel of Fortune," the more the revealed letters will meet your expectations. The actuation of ones trust can occur in various proportions of external (mutually shared experience) and internal (exclusive experience) events. Faith is descriptive of a type of action. Faith is to trust, what velocity is to position.

2) Relation (What are Humans?)

Humans are primarily built to relate. Relation occurs between beings by trust. Freewill describes the potential to create - out of nothing - choices. Freewill is our hand, and Trust is a switch. Humans are choice-creators. Our choices enable us to trust, and our trust enables our relationships. All of human experience can be characterized by our facility to relate.

1) Creation (What is Valuable?)

Before the beginning was a relationship. Each being within the relationship fulfilled the desires of the other beings, freely giving of themselves to one another. This relationship was pleasurable. These beings desired that other beings experience the pleasure of this relationship. Therefore, God created Humans.