Today at lunch we discussed the theological topic of what it means to believe, and how do we come to believe in God. We're reading Jurgen Moltmann's excellent book, The Spirit of Life, and this is what spurred on the discussion.
From a Western perspective, and relying heavily on Thomas Aquinas, we must first understand before we are able to see, and once we can see we are able to love. Thus, one must first seek knowledge, even if it's "faith seeking understanding" - believing that you'll understand why it is you believe.
From an Eastern perspective, one must first love, and by loving, be able to see, and then finally understand. In a sense, it reverses or stands in contrast to the cycle set up by Aquinas.
I have another idea to throw into the midst: trust and belief play an integral, dynamic role. They build off each other in a way that continually deepens the relationship and opens oneself up to new and further possibilities... on into the infinite.
Yet how do we enter this cycle? Where do we begin? It's a which came first problem, the chicken or the egg? How can we trust someone if we do not first believe her/him? And yet, how can we believe someone if we do not first trust her/him?
My answer is that all it takes is faith, which is a gracious gift from God (Grace Alone, Faith Alone, God Alone). Stepping out in faith gets us into the circle of trust/belief, and the deeper we go in our experience of trust and belief, the deeper our faith grows.
Thoughts? I got a bunch of blank looks from my colleagues, but I like to think that I'm on to something.
3 comments:
What you're talking about makes sense to me, but I'd need to see it fleshed out to really understand what you're trying to say I think. The example of Aquinas is fine, but the "Easetrn perspective" is too general for this religious studies major :)
(i.e. I think you can find the love-first-then-see method in Christianity or Judaism or Islam, etc., as well for example)
What I like is that you are not talking about "belief" as simply agreement with a truth-claim - which is a growing issue for me - but rather you link it to trust (I'm not sure you can even talk about "pistis" without talking about "trust"). This is crucial to recover theologically I think. So many of our arguments as a denomination are between groups of people who both put existential trust in God but who adhere to a couple differing truth-claims philosophically - and that's just sad.
I agree with doug. Specifically -- define faith against belief? what's the difference? and trust? I like it, and all, specially that πιστις χριστου, but in order to play one faith-concept against another we need some more definition.
you can also find the anti-understanding thing in 12 steps which have a slogan "act your way into right thinking" (as opposed to "think your way into right behavior.") I like that one.
Great stuff; thanks for commenting!
I do think belief entails trust, and vice-versa. And too often we leave belief as simply accepting a truth claim, as you say Doug, and that's not the belief I'm talking about.
Faith is trusting in what cannot be seen; Belief is trusting in what can be seen. Trust is putting some weight on your belief, so that you would stumble if this belief or faith is removed; not necessarily fall, but you'll have to readjust. Trust means you have a stake in something/someone.
"Acting your way into thinking" is a wonderful expression. too often we try to think our way through, rather than ever risking our bodies. It's one thing to "risk" thoughts, it's an entirely different - and embodied - thing to risk action/behavior.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Post a Comment