DefendingChrist.com Blog

A few weeks ago, I posted a tongue-in-cheek guide to Christianese.  There is a word that I did not include, because I think it deserves more time and careful thought.  The word faith has different meanings for different people.

To atheists (and, sadly, some Christians), the word faith means belief without evidence, or worse, belief even when all evidence is against you.  The widespread acceptance of this false dichotomy (faith vs reason) seems to have come out of the enlightenment period, when scientists were coming up with theories that seemed to contradict Christianity.  At this time, the Church, for the most part, stopped fighting back.  Rather than examining the evidence and presenting our own theories, we seemed to take the attitude that we don’t need evidence, because we have faith.  This, I believe, is an unhealthy view of reality, and a poor definition of faith.  I don’t blame atheists for not wanting to have faith.  I wouldn’t want to either if this were the definition!

There is another group of people, today, who have come up with another definition of faith.  To them, faith is an impersonal force that can be manipulated by using “faith filled words” (Abracadabra?).  Using these “faith filled words,”  a person can create his or her own reality, much like when God spoke the world into existence (presumably with His “faith filled words”).  Nonchristians get ideas like this from books like The Secret, and refer to it as the law of attraction.  Christians get the ideas from well known preachers like Joel Osteen, and Benny Hinn,  and refer to it as faith.  In my opinion, this, too, is a poor definition of faith, and a dangerous theology.  Many theologians consider this to be heresy.  I don’t know if it is or not, but it sure seems like something my itching ears would want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3).

The third definition of faith that I’d like to discuss is articulated very well by Greg Koukl. This is a sort of active trust in what you believe to be true.  This type of faith is not the opposite of reason, but of unbelief.  The faith is what flows from a belief.  This belief can be based on facts and evidence, or it can be completely irrational.  On some of the weightier issues, though, such as life and death decisions and matters of religion, it might be wise to look at facts and evidence, because this active trust can have serious consequences.  For instance, having faith that a particular vehicle can fly could be dangerous if that vehicle is a bus, since the active trust might produce the action of driving the bus off a cliff, should the opportunity present itself.  Likewise, an active trust that a particular religion is not the only true religion could have severe consequences if that religion is, in fact, the only true religion (think eternal conscious torment).

This third type of faith is the type that I have in mind when I refer to my faith.  When I am in a discussion with another person, I may take their definition of faith for the sake of argument, but my definition of faith is an active trust in what I believe to be true.

Filed under: Christianese, Religion