The Nature of Faith

In my previous post I advanced the premise that every one of us, without exception, lives by faith.  We believe all kinds of things for which we have no proof.  It amazes me that some would attempt to deny this, because it is true at every level of analysis.  To revisit the plane example, I may be able to cite all kinds of statistics that show that the odds are very low that my plane will crash (which is true), but that does not mean that I know that the particular plane I'm about to board will land safely at the desired destination.  I have statistical evidence that strongly suggests the odds are in my favor of landing safely, but those are just odds - they are not proof or knowledge.  And I then board because I believe that those odds will likely hold true for me on this particular flight.

In other words, I have, in my own mind, good reasons for believing that boarding this plane is a good idea.  Some people are dreadfully afraid of flying, though, and what constitutes enough of a reason to believe for me may not be sufficient for those that simply will not board a plane.  I might think their lack of faith in the airline industry is unfortunate, but nonetheless, they are simply not convinced.  As I said in my last post, we all have our standards, but none of us lives only by absolute knowledge or proof.

Some may argue that the airplane example is not analogous to God, that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  That's a fair and yet unfair criticism.  It is fair because clearly God is not an airplane.  One (the airplane) is a tangible object with physical characteristics that can be measured, while the other (God) is not.  But we're not discussing whether we have faith in the existence of the airplane versus the existence of God.  We're discussing the nature of faith and proof.  Nobody can prove - until after the fact - that the plane you will board will land safely at the desired destination.  And so you have to make a decision based on whatever information is available to you whether or not you will board the plane.  And that decision must be made before the plane lands at the destination you desire to go to, obviously.  So your decision is based on whatever information and reasons you have without the absolute proof that it will land safely.

When we choose to believe something without proof, that is faith.  The very definition of the word is, "belief that is not based on proof" (see dictionary.com).  But there are varying degrees of faith, and there are certainly different objects of faith.  One may have a little bit of faith (I kind of sort of think that my team will win the game tonight, even though the starting pitcher usually gets clobbered by that other team) or a lot of faith (I'm leaping off this bridge with only a giant rubber band attached to my ankles, trusting that it will keep me from splattering on the ground 250 feet below me).  But the nature of faith itself is the same.

Moreover, the nature of the object of our faith does not change what faith itself is.  I can believe in the love from my mother or I can believe that Siberia is a real place (never having been there) or I can believe that the universe came into existence from nothing in an instantaneous explosion-type event or I can believe in a Creator of the universe or I can believe that Attila the Hun actually crossed the Alps with elephants.  I can believe in all those very different things, and I have very different reasons for believing those things, but none of that changes the nature of what faith is.  We all live by faith, since we all believe many things for which we have no proof.

And that brings me to the question of the existence of God.  Let's assume that each of us possesses a certain amount of knowledge, and we pooled that cumulative knowledge together.  Let's call that amount of knowledge X.  Now let's ask how much total knowledge is possible.  Let's call that Y.  Given that there's so much we don't know about the universe, it's safe to say that X<Y.  By a huge margin.  Here's a picture to demonstrate.  The large circle is Y - the total possible knowledge that could exist - and the small dot is X - the cumulative knowledge of all humans.

Clearly, there's so much more that we don't know than that we do know.  With respect to God, we do not have proof of His existence or proof of His non-existence.  We do not know either way.  So it is entirely possible that outside the current cumulative knowledge (proof) of humans that God exists.  That does not mean that such knowledge will always and forever remain outside the totality of human knowledge.  We must, therefore, leave open the possibility that God exists as a logical necessity.  In other words, if we are intellectually honest, we must conclude that it is possible that God exists.  Simply because God might be outside the realm of our current knowledge is not sufficient reason to conclude that therefore He does not exist.  After all, there are so many things that once were outside the realm of human knowledge that have, over the course of time, become part of the human knowledge database.

And, as an aside, it's not enough to say that if something exists outside our current knowledge that therefore we shouldn't be bothered with it.  There would be no human progress whatsoever if everyone adopted this perspective.  We would not have philosophy, technology, space exploration, medical advances, chemistry, calculus, engineering, air travel, you name it, if we simply said that if we don't know it, its not worth exploring.  Human progress exists in every area because we seek to increase our current knowledge base, which of course means exploring areas where we currently lack knowledge.

So if we are going to be intellectually honest, we ought to agree to several key points:

(1) We all live by faith.  That is, we all believe in things for which we do not have "proof".

(2) Everyone's threshold for believing in certain things is different.  What constitutes sufficient reason to believe for you may be different than it is for me.  This is normal and expected.

(3) The fact that there are wildly different objects of our faith does not change the nature of faith itself.  It may simply mean that for me to believe in A will require better reasons than it would for me to believe in B.

(4) In a sense, we must all be agnostic about God.  That is, His existence may well be outside the knowledge of humans, but since we possess such a tiny percentage of all possible knowledge, God's existence may very well be real, but just outside our current knowledge base.  (the same may be true for Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, but I'm not interested in them right now; if someone wishes to advance an argument for their existence, be my guest)  Thus a hard atheism ("I know God does not exist") is necessarily false.  A soft atheism ("I do not believe God exists") may be valid, and certainly agnosticism ("I don't know whether God exists or not") is valid.  But hard atheism is not.

As we move into potential reasons for believing in God, keep these points in mind.

Looking for "Proof" that God Exists?

As a kid, my buddy Tim and I would often sit outside and stare at the sky and ask deep philosophical questions like, "How big is the universe?", "How did all this get there?", and "Does God exist?"  These are logical questions to ask when observing the stars laid up against the black of night.  

So often when I am discussing these issues with people they respond with something like this:  "I don't live by faith.  I will only believe that which can be proven."  I appreciate the heart behind this sentiment - after all, the idea of God is certainly a big one, with rather large consequences one way or the other - but I must say that at the end of the day, it is an untenable and unrealistic perspective.  Here's why.

Every single person lives every day by faith.  If faith is "believing something without 100% proof", then we live by faith all the time.  The next time you board an airplane ask yourself this series of questions:  Do I know the pilot personally?  Do I know the mechanics?  Do I know that the pilot is good?  Do I know that he is in good health and will not collapse en route?  Do I know that there are no terrorists that have smuggled bombs on board?  Do I know that my bags will arrive at my destination (haha)?  

The answer to these questions - every single one of them - is no (perhaps you might know the pilot once in a blue moon, but that's rare).  You do not know these things for certain.  And yet you board the plane and entrust people you don't know in a plane that you don't know is in good working order or has enough fuel with your very life and perhaps the lives of your children (if you have any and they are on board with you).  That is a significant risk you are taking.  You are trusting them with your life, but you are doing so without proof.  

What you don't have is proof.  What you do have, however, is sufficient reason to believe.  And there's a huge difference between the two.  It isn't just about airplane rides either.  Do you know that your car has been fixed properly by your mechanic of 20 years?  No.  They sometimes make mistakes.  But you have good reason to believe that he did a fine job, so you feel ok about getting behind the wheel.  Do you know that the person on the other end of the phone that you're giving your personal information to really does work for the insurance company, and that someone else isn't tapping into that phone line?  No.  But you have good reason to believe that it is.

You see my point.  Every day we live by faith, not proof.  Sometimes the situation is small, and sometimes we literally put our lives in the balance based on faith, not proof.  We do so, though, because we have what we believe to be good reasons for doing so.

So why is it any different with God?  Why do we demand 100% proof that God is real when we never - not for a single day in our lives - live with that perspective anywhere else?  It can't just be because the consequences are so big; after all, we put our very lives and the lives of loved ones in taxicabs driven by people with no vowels in their last names in foreign cities and on airplanes flown by people we can't even see.  The stakes don't get any bigger than that, yet we live by faith all the time.

I would encourage you to follow with me over the next handful of posts, because I will attempt to lay out for you what for me are sufficient reasons to believe in God's existence.  I understand that what is sufficient reason for me may not be sufficient reason for you.  Maybe what satisfies me doesn't satisfy you.  That's all well and good.  But please do not think that what you really require is "proof" of God's existence because that is an untenable and unrealistic position, and it is inconsistent with how you live the rest of your life.  

Let us pursue "reasons to believe" together!!

Free Speech?

NBC Connecticut (http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/ACLU-School-Should-Allow-Anti-Gay-T-Shirt-157243065.html) has an article about a Wolcott, CT student that wore a t-shirt to school that featured a rainbow with a slash through it. According to the article, "Seth Groody wore the shirt bearing a rainbow with a slash through it to Wolcott High School on April 20, a day designated to promote awareness of the bullying of gay students, according to the ACLU of Connecticut." The school required him to take the shirt off, prompting the ACLU to file a letter of protest with the school principal.


The facebook link to that article asks the question, "Where do you stand on this? Should a student in Wolcott be allowed to wear a shirt with an anti-gay message to school?" It's an interesting question from a Christian perspective.


On the one hand, surely Christians should be in favor of free speech (and this would qualify). After all, if all inflammatory speech were to be banned, what would that mean for the gospel? The message of Christ is a divisive one, even if proclaimed in love, as it should be. The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17, "14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." Jesus Himself said in Matthew 10:34, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."


In other words, the message of Christ, even though He is love and we are to communicate it in love, is divisive and inflammatory. It is inflammatory to those who do not wish to follow Him, so much so that many times Christians are afraid of even saying His name for fear of the reaction.  So if we as Christians believe that divisive or offensive or inflammatory speech should be outlawed, then the most important message one could ever share - the glorious gospel - would be off the table.  We must, therefore, be advocates of free speech.

However, freedom comes with responsibility.  If we are to have freedom of speech, how should we use that freedom?  Paul wrote in Galatians 5:1, "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."  That is, we have been freed from the bondage of sin, but we have a responsibility to use that freedom in a way that is good and right and noble, not in a way that dishonors the One who freed us.  If I now have the freedom of speech, I need to use that freedom responsibly and say things that are productive.  Paul put it this way in Ephesians 4:29, "Let no unwholesome talk proceed from your mouths, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear."  

If I am to have freedom of speech, I need to use that freedom to build others up, to speak the truth in love, to help move people towards God, not away from Him.  Whatever one thinks of homosexuality, the t-shirt that Seth Groody wore appears on the surface to not merely be a statement on the morality of homosexuality, but rather about gay and lesbian people.  And yes, there is a difference between the two.  

Christians ought to embrace free speech, even if it means that some offensive things get said.  But we should encourage personal responsibility and proper use of that freedom.

The Price of Freedom

This is Memorial Day weekend, and it is a perfect opportunity to remember one of the basic truisms in life:  freedom is not free.  There is always a price to be paid for our freedom.  Nelson Madela said, "There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires."  On Memorial Day we remember those who have given their lives in the service of our country, so that we have the freedom to speak our minds, to worship, to assemble, and more.  


I am not sure this generation really understands the price that needs to be paid for freedom.  I am currently reading "Inferno", by Sir Max Hastings.  It is a rather large book on World War II.  As I read it, I am reminded of the horrors of war and the sacrifice made by people on the home front to provide for the troops in the field.  


My father was a fighter pilot in the early years of the Vietnam War.  He flew an F-8 Crusader off the USS Hancock.  He was a legitimate war hero for his extraordinary courage in the face of danger.  Here is a picture of an F-8 Crusader of my father's squadron, VF-211:

Here is an account of the incident that earned him the Navy's highest honor:



On 21 June 1966, the Crusaders mixed it up with MiGs again. Navy Crusaders were providing escort and performing reconnaissance on that day, and when an RF-8A was shot down, Crusaders vectored in on the location to provide cover for the pilot, who had ejected successfully and was waiting for a search-and-rescue (SAR) helicopter.


The Crusaders were at low altitude and low on fuel when they were bounced themselves by MiG-17s. Lieutenant Gene Chancey hit a MiG with cannon fire at close range during the mixup, tearing off his opponent's wing. However, the MiGs also scored hits on the Crusader piloted by Chancey's flight leader, Lieutenant Commander Cole Black, and Black was forced to eject.


Lieutenant JG Phil Vampatella's Crusader had been hit by flak earlier, but he was still in the fight. A MiG got stuck on his tail and Vampatella had to engage afterburner and run for it. The slower MiG broke off the attack. Even though Vampatella was low on fuel and had problems turning due to his battle damage, he decided to turn back and engage the MiG. He fired a Sidewinder that detonated behind the MiG and sent it into the ground.


Vampatella was "breathing fumes" when he managed to get a tanker on station just off the coast. However, the tanker was low on fuel, too, and Vampatella was just able to make it back to his carrier, the USS HANCOCK, with no fuel to spare for a second go-round. On inspection, he discovered that his Crusader had been hit in the tail by a 37 millimeter flak round and was peppered with small shrapnel holes. Vampatella won the Navy Cross for the action.


This was a few months before my oldest sister was born.  My father risked his life for his friends knowing full well that his wife was due with their first baby, and that the baby could be born into a world without a father.  He survived it, and three children came after the first.  I am happy to report that my mother and father are doing well to this day.  I am so proud to be the son of a father who has fought so bravely for our country, and of a mother who endured endless days not knowing if he would return home alive.  Such is the price of freedom.


But you know, freedom on an even grander scale has been purchased for us as well.  We are all burdened with the reality of a sinful nature, and we are, in fact, slaves to sin.  But Jesus Christ came to set us free.  Galatians 6:1 says, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."  


Christ purchased our freedom with his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the grave.  He offers us this hard-won freedom if we would only receive it by faith, by trusting in Him alone.  This weekend let us all remember the price that hundreds of thousands of Americans have paid in order that we may be free; but even more than that, remember the sacrifice of God's Son, so that we may be free from the bondage of sin forever and may have eternal life through Him.

Freedom and Responsibility

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote the freedom to err." - Mahatma Gandhi

We are a people that demands freedom and "rights".  We expect fair and, yes, sometimes preferential, treatment from others, from the government, and even from God.  But there is one thing that too many people don't realize, whether by ignorance or by choice:  true freedom comes with consequences.  Too often people want their freedom to make their own choices apart from the interference of others or of government, but when they use that freedom unwisely, they expect to be bailed out by the same people and institutions that they demanded stay out of their lives in the first place.

When the housing market crashed a few years ago (and it's a long, complicated story), we saw greed at every level:  politicians (who wanted to be able to thump their chests at what wonderful programs they created), banks and other lenders (who saw an opportunity to make money risk-free), and even individuals (who were able, through insane financial products, to purchase homes they had no business owning, as their income did not warrant such a purchase).  It wasn't just "corporate" greed; it was greed all the way up and all the way down.

But what happened when, as many predicted would be the case given the shady nature of the entire setup, deals started going bad?  What happened when people who couldn't afford these homes to begin with actually started defaulting?  They demanded relief.  The banks demanded federal help.  Everyone wanted the fruit of the tree but nobody wanted to take responsibility when the tree died.

When GM went under, what did people expect?  To be bailed out.  Why are most people opposed to privatized Social Security accounts?  Because what happens if people make bad investments?

Go back and look at Gandhi's quote above.  Freedom, if it is to be freedom at all, necessarily includes the possibility of making bad choices.  It is not true freedom if we are insulated from mistakes.  If we want freedom, we need to be personally responsible for the choices we make using that freedom.  And yes, that means reaping the benefits of good and productive choices, but it also means living with the consequences of poor and destructive choices.

Personal responsibility and the law of reaping and sowing (see Galatians 6:7-8 - "Do not be deceived,  God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.  For the one who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life.") are necessary components of living in a free society.

Fully Integrated

I've been in a lot of discussions over the years with people who have stated that it would be very nice if I could simply please set my religious views aside and focus on the topic at hand. I understand what they're getting at. They are not interested in talking about religion, and they would prefer if my opinions were not unduly influenced by my faith and religious convictions. While I understand the sentiment, and while I am quite capable of discussing matters without citing chapter and verse, I must be honest and tell people that it is exceedingly difficult - and, frankly, a very unfair request on their part - for me to separate my faith from the rest of my life. Here's why.

For many people, their faith is a part of their lives. Religion is just one component of many, and because it is essentially a component, it is not terribly difficult to compartmentalize things. Religious faith becomes no different than any other area of interest, which can be set aside as needed. But for me, my faith is who I am. My primary identity is the fact that I am a Christian. To take that away would be to remove my heart, and it would fundamentally change who I am. You see, if Christianity is true, it has profound implications for us. Jesus came to seek and save the lost, it is true, but He is also very interested in the whole person, while here on earth. His mission wasn't only a heavenly one; it was earthly as well.

When a person believes in Jesus, he or she agrees to allow God to do a transformative work in his or her life (not that He would need our permission to do anything). God works onus from the inside out. Recall Jesus' words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:25-26 - "25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean." You see that Jesus is interested in the inner man, and out of that we will see evidence of that work in our lives. Here is the upshot of this truth: everything I do reflects my faith in Christ. Now, let's be real: I make lots of mistakes and I am hardly sin-free, but the way I think about parenting reflects Biblical principles of parenting. The way I think about relationships reflects Biblical principles of relationships. The way I think about government reflects Biblical principles of government. You get the idea. I am not as consistent as I would like to be, but who I am is bound up in my relationship with Christ. So when I am discussing important cultural issues, I try to be empathetic and put myself in other peoples' shoes, but at the end of the day, my beliefs and choices flow from who I am at he core of my being; and at the core is my Christian faith. This is what it means to be integrated - that what's on the inside (our beliefs) is the same as what's on the outside (your actions).

How about you? Who are you? What are your core beliefs that shape your opinions about morality, politics, sexuality, culture, relationships, etc.? Are you a fully integrated person?

Should We Take the Bible Literally?

In my previous post I argued that it's almost unimaginable to be a follower of Christ and ot believe the Bible.  I can picture a scenario where a tribe hears the good news from a missionary and believes but doesn't have the physical Bible on hand. But that is a very different scenario from a person having the Bible available and choosing to disbelieve for various reasons, and still claiming to believe in Christ, and follow His teachings.  In other words, if you claim that the primary documents that tell us who Jesus is and the things He did and taught are not fundamentally true, on what basis do you believe in Jesus? And in what Jesus are you believing?

But if it is true that one cannot truly follow Christ apart from accepting that the record of His life and ministry is true - in other words, believing the Bible - the next question is this:  what does it mean to believe the Bible?  Most people I know bristle at what I am about to say, but I think one needs to believe the Bible literally if he is going to believe it at all.



The biggest objection people have to understanding the scriptures is the notion of taking the Bible literally.  What they generally mean is that there are stories that seem far-fetched and to believe the Bible literally is to believe that such far-fetched (yea, "impossible") stories are true. Since they don't want to feel dumb for believing in the unbelievable, they simply choose to disbelieve.  Which, of course, makes a certain degree of sense.  It should be noted, though, that scientists present us with all kinds of claims that seem to be "unbelievable" (or at least, incredibly hard to believe).  For example, we are told that light is both a wave and a particle; we are told that the universe simply popped into being from nothing on its own; we are told that something can exist in an infinite number of quantum states but it is only the observation of the thing that determines its actual state; we are now being told that there very well may be multiple (in fact, an infinite number of) universes that make up a "multiverse".  Some of the smartest people on earth believe in these things - and I'm not even saying that they're wrong - but the point is that they are all extremely hard to believe, and yet we are told by the experts that they are true.  So it is very much within us believe things that seem far-fetched.


But what I really want to explore is the idea of taking the Bible literally.  I've mentioned what people think it means, but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, I do not think it means what they think it means.  To take the Bible literally means to take it as the literature dictates.  Let me explain.


The Bible is made up of 66 individual books.  Now, some of them are actually two parts of the same work (like 1 and 2 Kings).  Each book intends to communicate specific things in a particular way.  There are, in other words, different genres of literature. Here are some of the genres and a book that represents that genre:


Poetry - Psalms
History - 1,2 Chronicles
Gospel - Luke (a kind of biography/history/gospel message)
Epistle - Romans
Prophecy - Jeremiah


Each of these genres approaches its reader in a specific way, and should be read as such.  Suppose I am reading Acts 16:1-3.  It says, "16 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. ² He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. ³ Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."


When I read this I need to realize that Acts is a book of history, and thus when I believe the Bible literally, I believe that Paul actually visited Derbe and Lystra and actually met a man named Timothy who was of mixed parentage and who had a good reputation in the area.  


But suppose I read Isaiah 55:12, which says, "You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."  What am I to make of that?  If I take the Bible literally am I supposed to believe that trees have hands and that mountains and hills sing?  No, that would actually do the text a grave injustice, because it is not claiming any such thing.  As one commentator noted, "These are highly poetic images to express a happy state attended with joy and exultation."  The point of the passage is that God is calling people to Himself, and He is the giver and sustainer of life, and He promises good to those who love Him.  It is written in poetic form and thus uses metaphor, imagery, and other creative measures to communicate truth.  It is not meant to be read like a history or science text.


One more:  suppose I read John 20:24--29 - the story of "doubting" Thomas.  Jesus has died and the disciples are claiming that He has risen.  Thomas is, shall we say, highly skeptical.  He said, "Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into His side, I will never believe."  And then, eight days later, Jesus appeared to Thomas.  If I read that story, that is not poetic literature.  It is meant to convey fact.  Jesus actually did appear to Thomas, and Thomas actually believed in the physical, literal resurrection of Jesus.  To turn this episode into some sort of "spiritualized" event (i.e., it didn't really happen; it's just something for us to feel good spiritually...whatever that means) is also to do a grave injustice to the text.


So to take the Bible literally is to take it as it was meant to be taken.  Nothing more, nothing less.  


So yes, a Bible-believing Christian (again, is there any other kind, really?) should take the Bible literally, but that means recognizing when it is speaking historical fact, offering words of encouragement, using figures of speech, etc.  It's all part of the incredibly dynamic Word of God, as He communicates truth to us in a variety of ways.