What does it mean to have faith?

Recently, someone ask me: “What are your fundamental beliefs when it comes to faith?” Here was my answer:

A lot of people are confused about what faith actually is.

Some say that faith is a passive, intellectual accent, or acknowledgement of something. While this is indeed a type of faith, it is not the faith that brings about salvation for which the Bible talks about. After all, as the Book of James says, “the demons believe in God and they shutter” (2:19); yet they are not saved.

Some say faith is a matter of what you SAY you believe. But the Bible says "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, not everyone who claims Jesus is claimed BY Jesus.

Their close cousins are those that believe that faith is encapsulated in the very words themselves. They are referred to as the “Word of Faith” movement. Their faith is in the words themselves. They believe that the louder you say the words (like “Jesus!”) the more powerful the Spirit moves.

Others think that faith is just some sort of energy force that we just need to pay $19.95 for, and it will quickly rescue us from all our problems.

But real faith is something else. Real faith, first, involves active trust. Real faith is an active, receiving and trusting belief. This is what the Bible speaks of in terms of salvation. John 1:12 says, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (ESV)

Second, real faith involves active trust in something particular. In other words, real faith has an object of faith. When someone says they have faith, the common sense response should be “Faith in what?” One’s faith is only as good as the object by which it is placed. Something implicit in real faith is that it is also a right faith – that is, the object of their faith is worth trusting in. Conversely, one’s faith is misguided if the object of one’s faith is NOT worth trusting in. For example, if you had a physical condition that required treatment, trusting in the right doctor is critical for your recovery. Trusting in an incompetent doctor will only lead to worse physical problems. Similarly, let’s say you have a spiritual ailment. You need a competent spiritual doctor to help you, not a quack. We need faith (to trust) in the real God to save us.

Third, real faith always involves having reasons for why one believes in this object. Real faith is “trust based on evidence.” Some people think that the opposite of faith is reason. But the opposite of faith is disbelief. Everyone has reasons for their beliefs. Having reasons for one’s belief does not mean their beliefs are correct, but they have them because they have reasons. So if you’re trying to understand someone and where they are at, after asking the first question about faith (“what do you have faith in?”), another helpful question to ask is: “Why do you believe in that?”, or: “What are the reasons you have for believing that?” The answer one gives is their reasons. The reasons help them make the decision to trust in that thing. Those reasons can also be helpful in exploring whether one has trusted in right things.

In summary, real faith can be defined as an active trust based on reasonable assurance in right things. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith similarly: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

A Really Good Question

Recently, I've been in a discussion with one of my friends about William Young's book The Shack.

My bottom line is that I question our embracing the book.

One of my arguments has been that Young crosses the line in how he describes both God and the cross. Granted, there's a certain amount of leeway when engaging in allegory and fiction, but I think some of his descriptions stray into "heeeeyyyy....that's another Jesus entirely" territory.

Anyway, as I was driving tonight, I thought of a possible pushback to what I've been saying. It goes something like this:

"Well...God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, didn't He? If anything was a stretch, that's it, but there God is, assuming that form. If He can appear as a burning bush to communicate something about Himself to Moses, shouldn't it be ok for us to allegorize God as a life-size Aunt Jemima?"

While this doesn't touch upon my most fervent concerns (ex: what Young does to the cross and the attitude he takes to the Church), it raises a great question: when describing God in *any* genre (fiction or otherwise): where's the line?

I suppose there does come a point when we've overstepped our literary license. Where is that point? I have no interest in splitting hairs and finding *exactly* where the line is, as if I'd use that knowledge in trying to get as close to the line as possible. Nor is this a useless speculative question, like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" This is about God's very character...that's pretty central.

I have no answer to this question. I mean, I have hunches and inclinations, but nothing solid.

So I put the question to you: what do you think?

Is it ok, in fiction, to describe God as, say, a lion? How about a surly, moody teenager? A drunk Pittsburgh steel worker? A repressive, white, grumpy, old man? A 29 year old conservative blogger from California with a chip on his shoulder? ( :) ) An effeminate Asian?...a large, matronly, black woman who loves to cook waffles?

I'm pretty sure some of those are way out of bounds, and I bring them up only for comedic effect. But the bottom line question I don't have a solid answer on.

One thing for sure: our answer should not be, "we can describe God however we like as long as it benefits us."

If that's our answer, our priorities are hopelessly backwards.

BTW, I view conversations like this as incredibly important. Hey, I might be wrong and need to adjust who I think God is. I might need to adjust my approach to several other things (i.e., talking with people I disagree with)...that's one reason. Plus, we're not talking about personal preference here, like me trying to discuss someone's preference for Michigan over Ohio State. This is about eternal things, so it matters.

Taking Christ out of Christianity

The Whitehorse Inn writes:

At the core of just about every major religion is something we call advice, or a set of instructions intended to help people live better lives. But is that what lies at the heart of the Christian faith -- tips and instructions for personal
transformation?

A new book by Dr. Michael Horton examines this question and the implications involved with perverting the true message of Christianity. Visit www.christlesschristianity.org for more details on this new book.

Soul Searching part 4: MTD revisited

By Rich Bordner

(continued from here)

I quote Smith and Denton at length...hang in there, this quote is well worth reading in its entirety:

Adults in the United States over the past many decades have recurrently emphasized what separates teenagers from grown-ups, highlighting things that make each of them different and seemingly unable to relate to each other. But our conversations with ordinary teenagers around the country made clear to us, to the contrary, that in most cases teenage religion and spirituality in the United States are much better understood largely reflecting the world of adult religion, especially parental religion, and are in strong continuity with it. Few teenagers today are rejecting or reacting against the adult religion into which they are being socialized. Rather, most are living out their religious lives in very conventional and accommodating ways. The religion and spirituality of most teenagers actually strike us as very powerfully reflecting the contours, priorities, expectations, and structures of the larger adult world into which adolescents are being socialized. In many ways, religion is simply happily absorbed by youth, largely, one might say, by osmosis...

However, it appears that only a minority of U.S teenagers are naturally absorbing by osmosis the traditional substantive content and character of the religious traditions to which they claim to belong. For, it appears to us, another popular religious faith, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, is colonizing many historical religious traditions and, almost without anyone noticing, converting believers in the old faiths to its alternative religious vision of divinely underwritten personal happiness and interpersonal niceness...we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but has rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten stepcousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. This has happened in the minds and hearts of many individual believers and, it also appears, within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions. The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, Eucharist, and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward. It is not so much that U.S Christianity is being secularized. Rather more subtly, Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.

What Do You Believe?

Yesterday, in a post about the Bishop of Rochester, Rich included this:

We are rebels in arms against God, and only God's gracious offer of amnesty through Christ can change that....F-A-C-T. T-R-U-T-H, not just "for me," but objectively, is true regardless of who believes it.

Maybe some of us have never really believed that in the first place.

This reminded me of a recent Pew Research study of religion in the United States. There’s a lot of stuff in there, and if you’re interested in statistics about religion you can find a lot to chew on.
There’s some alarming trends, like this:

The Landscape Survey confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%.

And this:

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

And then, if you dig into the report (available in PDF files at the link), you’ll find this:

Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions--not just their own--can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%). Only among Mormons (57%) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (80%) do majorities say that their own religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life. (emphasis mine)

I’m really troubled by this. Honestly, I don’t understand why you would spend time and money on religious activities if you don’t actually believe you’re following the Truth. Why are you messing around? And the Truth in my church, and most evangelical churches I know, and most importantly, in the Word of God, is that Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” There are a lot of other verses to back that up, but it seems pretty clear to me. So what are people thinking?

I’m pretty sure that our current cultural view of tolerance is one of the factors here. We are told in school, in movies, in the media that we shouldn’t tell people that they are wrong. We shouldn’t believe in absolute truth. Clearly it’s started to creep into our churches as well. Plus, I guess, there is the human tendency to wish that no one has to be consigned to hell, or at least only a few really really bad people like Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. But just because something sounds nice doesn't make it true.

I wish I had an answer. I guess all I can do is remind you that it’s important to THINK, not just feel, about your faith. Know what your core beliefs are, and why you hold them. Think about how they should affect your life, change your behavior, modify your mental habits. Think honestly about the challenges to those beliefs that you might hear from a non-Christian, and know how you would respond. Know what ideas in the culture might pull you away from those beliefs, and be on guard against them. Be ready to talk about this information with others.

It doesn’t seem like enough, somehow, in this multi-cultural, “tolerant,” media-saturated society. But I’ve chosen to believe God’s Word, and in it Jesus says: "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." So that's the best I've got, and since it comes from God, I have to trust that it's good enough.

UPDATE: A friend just pointed me to a great article by Cal Thomas on the same topic: "Do They Think Jesus Was a Liar?" It's good, not too long, you should check it out!

UPDATE 2: Just realized this post had no title, so I added one. Sorry!

The Shack: It's Just Fiction! Right?

By Rich Bordner

Recently, the book The Shack, by William Young, has become all the rage. I forget how many copies its sold, but its on its way to becoming a best seller.

Without getting into a detailed review/summary of the book, it seems to have some questionable ideas about God in it. Many are greatly concerned over the book and the influence it is apparently having. I haven't read the book, so what do I know, so I'm not going to attempt a review. What I can do is point you to a review by someone who has read the book, someone I trust.

However, in talking with some about the book, I keep encountering a certain attitude that I can comment on. Many folks, in reaction to the negative criticism of the book, say, "It's just fiction! Why get so worked up over it? The book has incredibly blessed me and taught me about God."
Say I wanted to communicate to the world about God's wrath and justice (these are two biblical character qualities of God, just like His love.), so I wrote a fiction book where I depicted God as the serial killer guy from Saw. You read the book, and (rightfully) express concern (outrage would be more appropriate): 'Rich, I don't think God is like the guy from Saw. Yeah, I know He's just and He exhibits wrath on the unrepentant at the judgment seat, but the way you depict Him...well...That's not quite biblical.'

I respond, 'Relax. It's only fiction! I'm not writing a theological treatise! If you read the book, you will learn about God's justice and be blessed.'

How would you respond? No doubt, you'd respond with incredulity: even though its fiction, I'm communicating something about God, something deeply flawed. The fact that I'm writing fiction doesn't get me off the hook.

It's the same with The Shack. If I'm not off the hook in my flawed attempt at communicating about God's justice, why is Young off the hook when he makes a flawed attempt at communicating about other parts of God's nature, like His love or Immanence?

You see, we usually only express that blasé attitude when the book in question presents God in a soft light. Why the inconsistency?

I understand that fiction is a slightly more fluid genre than, say, theological papers in a professional journal. But that doesn't mean we give fiction authors a free ticket to ride when it comes to speaking about God, truth, and reality.

Far from being the "trash heap" of the written word, fiction is an incredibly powerful and important genre. Brian McLaren and others encapsulate their theological ideals in fiction partly because they understand such ideals will be easier for the rank and file to accept if they are captured in a story. For the most part, this is all well and good, but it has a down side: we can easily let our guard down.

Therefore, we should treat fiction as it is: an important and honorable genre worthy of the utmost consideration.

A Video Portrait Of Barack Hussein Obama

Together for the Gospel '08

Registration for T4G is open until March 21, 2008, or until the conference sells out (T4G sold out early in 2006!). Register today!

Tuesday April 15 - Thursday April 17, 2008

Kentucky International Convention Center, Louisville, KY

John Piper
How the Supremacy of Christ Creates Radical Christian Sacrifice

Thabiti Anyabwile

Bearing the Image: Identity, the Work of Christ and the Church

John MacArthur

The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing: The Doctrine of Absolute Inability

Ligon Duncan
Sound Doctrine - Essential to Faithful Pastoral Ministry: A Joyful Defense and Declaration of the Necessity and Practicality of Systematic Theology for the Life of the Church

Mark Dever
Improving the Gospel: Exercises in Unbiblical Theology

RC Sproul
The Curse Motif of the Atonement

Albert Mohler
Why Do They Hate It So? The Doctrine of Substitution

CJ Mahaney
Sustaining a Pastor's Soul

View video clips of the 2006 conference here: www.t4g.org/promo

Bridging the Great Divide

It has always been a challenge for the learned men who seek to educate and inspire to not lose the ability to communicate with the common man. In this piece, James Emery White explains how there is a real dearth of leaders in the church today who are first academically competent in knowing the deep truths of Scripture, and second, able to conveys these truths to the masses in a simpler form while still maintaining their accuracy.

Repeating History: Dancing with the Devil

Some Christians say that theology doesn't apply to real life. Here's a case in point that refutes such naïveté.

All on the left of the American political spectrum – and, unfortunately, far too many on the right – think man is basically good. We’re all “sinners,” most agree, but “deep down inside, we are all basically good people.” This view of humanity is aptly called Pelagianism (or Semi-Pelagianism). Interestingly enough, it was the most condemned heresy in Church history. (Not anymore; sadly, we openly embrace it in our churches across America today.) What follows from such empty thinking (Colossians 2:8) in our foreign affairs is the idea that if we just reason with these people (Osama, Hitler) then we will all come to an understanding with each other and can broker peace. Incidently, this is the same approach taken by liberal bureaucrats towards hardened criminals in our prisons. ("They can change" they say with their Oprah worldview. “Impossible!” I say, that is, unless God chooses to do a miraculous work in them.)

Oh, how foolish this approach to evil is! Chamberlain took such an appeasement approach with Hitler. "Peace for our time" the British Prime Minister glibly proclaimed back in 1938. Hitler just smiled and kept on trucking across Europe. Instead of less men dying to stop the German machine by taking proactive steps against the threat, our Allied hesitations, later on led to many more soldiers dying in WWII. (FYI: Almost 10,000 American soldiers died on the beaches of Normandy in one day. Around 3,500 American soldiers have died at this point in the 4 1/2 years of fighting in Iraq.)

I'm afraid we are repeating history. It looks like we are now living in the fall of 1938, as our leaders and media elite continue to ask for one more dance with the devil.