Belief, Faith, and the History of Christianity
a dialogue with Harvey Cox
In 2009 Harvey Cox published an accessible, well written book entitled The Future of Faith. I agree with his basic insight that the history of Christian religion can be meaningfully viewed in three overarching periods: (1) the early period before Constantine, (2) the period following Constantine until recently, and (3) a current period that is more like the first period than the second.
Cox characterized that first period as an age of faith, the second period as an age of belief, and our present and future period as another age of faith. Cox is clear that faith is an act of our deep existence and that belief is a matter of images, stories, and doctrines of the mind. I agree that it is important to understand this distinction between faith and belief, and also the relationship between them. Cox’s elaborations using this basic model are convincing and useful; nevertheless, I want to suggest that a still deeper perspective is needed. For example, Cox is clear that faith was not entirely dead in period two, and that the confusion of faith with belief existed in period one. Nevertheless, I will show how easy it is for Cox’s readers to idealize period one and demonize period two. Though Cox does not, some Protestants have virtually claimed that faith died shortly after the Bible was written and was not recovered until the time of Luther. This view of Christian history is deeply wrong.
In order to proceed with a more accurate view of Christian history, the terms “faith” and “belief” need to be more clearly defined. Both terms, when carefully defined, have positive applications within all three periods. For example, while belief in rational content is an inadequate substitute for faith as a transrational action of our profound consciousness, a belief can be an expression of faith. In fact, there is no existence of faith without some effort to express that faith in self-understandings and cosmological understandings that amount to a set of beliefs. Both faith and belief are essential functions of being human, along with breathing. This leads to my a basic critique of Cox’s book. I believe he has too greatly idealized the first period of Christian religion, picturing it as too pure in its charismatic faith and too devoid of time-specific, problematical beliefs. Similarly, I believe he has pictured the middle period of Christianity as too devoid of faith and too lost in beliefs that are substituted for faith. To view the Christian past more accurately will enrich our view the future.
Finally, in doing our projection of a viable future for Christianity, we have as much to learn from the second period as we have from the first. And we have as much to abandon in the first period and we do in the second. The best-case scenario I see for the future of Christianity is a radical departure from both of these previous periods and a balanced appropriation of both of their respective gifts. This essay is a brief overview of this perspective. To fully elaborate these intuitions would require at least a whole book.
Definitions of Faith and Belief
A belief is something more than a passing thought. A belief involves commitment on the part of our core consciousness. A belief is more than an abstraction of the mind; it is a construct of thought that is considered to be, rightly or wrongly, an insight into what is real in the environment of living or in the inner life of the living person. When we say we believe something, we mean we are organizing and planning the living of our lives in the light of that piece of rational thought. In that regard, belief is not something to be minimized. We always have beliefs, and we could not live our lives without beliefs. However, a vital Christian theology must not make beliefs a substitute for faith. With regard to our beliefs themselves, the question is: are our beliefs true, partly true, or not true at all? And are our beliefs firmly held, casually assumed, or simple trucked along as mental baggage that means very little to us?
Faith, as clarified by Paul, Luther, and others, is not a set of beliefs. Faith is a risk of our entire lives upon something not seen with eye or mind. For Paul, Luther, and many others, “faith” means trusting in the trustworthiness of the Final Reality that we all confront. Faith is not simply content for the mind. Faith is a motion of the core of consciousness, constituting the life of the whole self. Faith is a deep response of our profound humanness. Faith is a “Yes” answer to such questions as these: Does the Source and Tomb of our existence love us? Is Final Reality doing all things well, or is this Final Upagainstness indifferent (or perhaps hostile) to us? And does Reality forgive us all our “unrealism” and offer us a genuine fresh start in a glorious “authenticity”? Christian faith answers deep within our core existence and with our whole body’s actions a response of “Yes” to such questions about Final Reality’s trustworthiness. Again, this “Yes” answer is not given by the mind only, but by the core of our consciousness.
Also, such faith is not a rational conclusion based on some other truth; such faith is a core relation to Reality that precedes all thinking about faith or about the consequences of living this faith. All our attempts to give a rational description of faith are time-specific and therefore limited descriptions—words that may be useful for a time and place, but inadequate to hold the Eternal relatedness that faith is. Faith is a leap into the full face of Absolute Mystery. Thus faith can only serve as the starting point for all other acts of thought and body. Faith is a risk of our entire being in the fundamental either-or of living. Either Reality is against us. OR Reality is for us.
There cannot be a rational justification for this faith, yet this faith is not anti-intellectual. Human reason a part of the reality being trusted. This does not mean that all the products of reasoning are trustworthy, but that our natural capacity for rational appropriation of what is true is an aspect of the “creation of the Creator,” where “Creator” means that Final Reality we face in every event. The issue with regard to faith and reason is this: does faith use reason faithfully for the purposes of faith, or must faith bow to reason for some sort of justification of faith?
Any confidence for living the life of faith comes in the fruits of having opted to live the faith alternative. Many of those who have opted for faith have claimed that the life of faith has been given to them by Reality. We do choose faith, but faith is not a human invention. Faith is a basic part of the created cosmos that is given along with the cosmos itself. In other words, faith is the only realistic option for living. Every other option is a disaster working its way to some hell of despair. Reflections like these are an expression of the confidence that faith is experienced to be.
Having been given faith and opted for faith, do we still sometimes doubt that Final Reality is doing all thing well on our behalf? Yes, we do. Faith is a journey in which the temptation to opt otherwise remains present. “Lead us not into temptation” is part of the Lord’s prayer. Also, consider the Gospel story about Jesus in his final garden of prayer as he is sweating his awareness that it has become likely that he will be handed over for crucifixion. Does he give up his faith that Final Reality is doing all things well? No. Is he tempted to do so? Yes. He is human at this point, as any of us would be.
The final act of faith in the Jesus story is held in these words “into thy hands I commend my consciousness.” Faith is the sort of confidence that has to be maintained in the face of all temptations to opt otherwise. This makes faith something different from belief, something more basic than any belief, something pre-rational to any reasoning about faith. All beliefs are subject to doubt, but faith is part of an either-or commitment of life, either (1) the trust of Reality or (2) the mistrust of Reality—either (1) “Yes” to realism as the best case scenario for our lives or (2) it is not. For example, when Mark’s Jesus quotes the 22nd Psalm on the cross, “My God, my God, why have your forsaken me,” this must not be interpreted as a lack of faith. The relation “My God” is being maintained in spite of whatever doubts to Jesus’ beliefs are being felt. We do not know what the historical Jesus actually said on the cross. Mark’s picture of Jesus finding meaning the 22nd Psalm is a picture of faith not unfaith. It pictures the sort of raw humanity in which it is still possible for faith to live, in spite of all doubts about beliefs in which that faith has been expressed.
These topics are more fully elaborated in the following extended essay:
http://www.realisticliving.org/UR1/xFRCoxBeliefFaith.pdf
For even more elaboration, see the following book:
The Love of History and the Future of Christianity
toward a manifesto for a next Christianity
For more information on this book, click: