Belief and Faith

There was a short discussion this past week in our Bible study class about “faith” and “belief.”   I was squirming in my seat as they had the discussion and after not being able to contain myself I leaned over to my wife and whispered…”faith and belief come from the same root word in Greek.”  I’m not certain what I intended to convey to her with my vast knowledge of the Greek language (wink, wink), but I at least wanted her to understand it’s very hard to convey a difference between to the two words.  At a minimum it’s inadequate to think one can have faith without first having a certain level of belief. The other side of that coin is the necessity of belief in someone or something in order to exercise faith.  Try as one might, separating the two can be a recipe for frustration.

Now I’m most likely not the one to put the meat on the bones when it comes to a discussion of this magnitude, nevertheless, from my own thinking, it’s important for me to understand some very elemental principles. First, that the words “faith” and “belief” do indeed stem from the same Greek word “pistis.”  It’s important we understand that. (There, I’ve just conveyed my “vast knowledge” of the Greek language.)  :)    I could say that I believe in Jesus Messiah but in order to act on that belief I must have a certain faith that Jesus is who he said he was and his teachings are true.   I can have faith that Jesus is who he said he was and his teachings are true, but that acknowledgement means little if I don’t practice what he taught. (We’ll talk about Abraham in a minute, but he typifies this idea.)

If we look up “belief” in the ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) it refers us immediately to “Faith.”  The point, when you read the article, is mainly this – faith is an issue of reliance or trust.  If I believe in God I trust/rely on God to be who He said He would be and to do what He said He would do.  The opposite of this can be seen most clearly with the habits of Israel and their lack of reliance on God to do what He said He would do. Furthermore, if we trace that understanding far enough we end up at the doorstep of Adam and Eve.  Not believing God and not having total reliance on Him was what really prompted the apple to fall into the wrong hands.  It wasn’t so much that God didn’t want them to know “good and evil” it was that He wanted them to learn that lesson His way, in His timing, at His instruction.  Another example that both James and Paul cite is Abraham: “…He believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.”   Actually, if you are familiar with the story, Abraham had great difficulty in relying on God to fulfill His covenant promise.  As the years ticked by both Abraham and Sarah were finding themselves wondering about the delay and more than willing to take matters in their own hands.  Not exactly a pure picture of reliance regardless of how deep Abraham’s belief might have been or would become.

We can believe in God all we want but unless we are willing to rely (have faith) on Him and follow His instructions we have what James calls an empty faith. We may believe in God and yet wonder why we struggle with certain sins or behaviors that are not pleasing to Him. It’s rather simple really – we’re not relying on God for the tools we need to conquer. We’re hoping we can do it on our own.  Well, how’s that working out for you?   For me, not so well.   If we can just remember the words of the wisdom writer —- “Trust in the LORD with all you heart and lean not on your own understanding  and He will direct your paths.”  To put it another way – believe and rely, trust and obey. Never apart, always equal in intention.

It’s All Greek To Me

Is it necessary that we know how to use the original biblical languages in order to study the Bible ?   Of course not. But does that mean we should ignore the importance of how the original languages “work” in order to grasp a better understanding of the biblical text? Of course not.

Most people in Sunday School classes or community Bible studies have ample tools available to them in order to break the surface meaning of the biblical text. Whether it’s a good translation, a decent commentary or computer related Bible study aides, the tools are out there – many of them free – if people have a desire to dig a little deeper into the meaning of God’s word.  Does that mean God’s word is not obvious on its surface?   Well, to be honest, there are times when I would have to say yes.  The words seem clear enough and challenging enough, but there’s more to understanding the Bible than just reading a compilation of words.  English words seldom, if ever convey the same strength or thoughts the “original” words did and that’s where the difficulty comes in.   Here’s an example that may illustrate my point and show how translations may differ.

In the book of James, chapter two, verse one we read these words: My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. (ESV)       If we break this sentence down it would look like this:

• My brothers
• hold not
• the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ
• the glory
• with partiality

Most of the major translations present the sentence as an imperative or command. The NRSV and NLT present it as a question – “My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” (NRSV)

Of course there are many things that could be discussed regarding this verse, but it’s important to see how translators play a role in shaping the text and giving it certain meaning.  It could be that James is questioning his reader’s faith when they show partiality, or it could be that James is adamant about the fact that showing partiality should not be part of the believer’s conduct.  There’s a significant difference between the two and it is very much worth discussing.  Would a discussion change the fact that as believers we often show partiality? No – but it forces us to take a hard look at partiality and how it affects our personal life and witness.   After all, showing partiality or favoritism is often a “what’s in it for me” approach to human relationships. We show partiality to the “rich” because we believe there’s something to gain. We show partiality toward the poor because we believe they have nothing to offer us. Recognizing that is powerful in and of itself.  Can one call our faith into question if we show partiality? Perhaps, especially if it’s consistent conduct, but simply showing partiality does not invalidate personal faith. It’s dishonoring to God, as James makes very clear, but it does not negate faith.

Does looking at the Greek help us understand the point James is trying to  make? In some respects it does. If nothing more, it helps us clarify how James sets up the importance of showing partiality when it comes to living out one’s faith. Partiality is not congruent with how Jesus lived and it’s not an appropriate way for us to live.  In other words, if we have a living, vibrant and on-going faith then partiality is not welcome.

“Are We There Yet?”

Like most kids, I was prone to spouting that line to my folks on those road trips that seemed interminable. Heck I even harass my wife when we’re taking a road trip with…”Are we there yet?”  However, due to recent events, that question has taken on new meaning for me.

Not too long ago,  in a rather public forum of folks that we’ll call “seniors”, there was a rather lively discussion regarding how emotions, words, and actions can impact our ability to be a positive witness for Christ.  A few minutes into the discussion  a person made this comment which I’ll paraphrase; in a group of seniors like ours I would think many of us have “arrived” and our concern is not our emotions, words or actions – we’ve pretty well come to terms with those and have those under control. The issue is really how we witness for Christ, i.e., how we tell people about Jesus.

Well hush my mouth and call me stupid!  I had no idea at my age that I should have “arrived” at maturity in Christ. That by this time in my life, my concern should not be character or comport, but actually how I tell someone about Christ.  Of course, telling someone about Christ is important. But it’s my opinion that one never really arrives!    As they ol’ saying goes, “you’re either green and growin’ or ripe and rotten.”

I know my habits should be more honoring to Christ. My words should seek to edify others and not tear them down; my temper should be controlled and my actions consistent with a believer in Christ. But I gotta tell ya, I’m far from complete or mature in any of those categories.  I know some folks who think they are – I’m not one of them.

Jesus did admonish us to be “perfect (complete)” even as our Father in heaven is perfect. And I’m keeping that goal in my sights. Nevertheless, I struggle every day with words, attitudes and actions that are not honoring to Christ and far from exemplifying the Christian character that would draw others to the Savior.  Does that make me a loser?  Does that mean I’m really not saved?   Does it mean that I’m a backslider and a hypocrite?   Does it mean I missed the “arriving bus” and now I’m simply floundering with things that should have been settled years ago?  For goodness sake, I still struggle with “sins” and temptations that haunted me as a new believer. Even I’ve got sense enough to know I should have settled those types of issues years ago, but some how the enemy knows my vulnerabilities and exploits them at what seems to be his leisure regardless of my mature age.

Will I reach a point when I have “arrived?”  Perhaps, but I’m certainly not there yet.  I do know people who seem to be close to that threshold of maturity. People who – at least in my presence – show a depth of faith and consistency of character that makes me desirous of those qualities.  More important than that, I am fortunate enough to have a soul-mate who is the most consistent Christian I know. A woman who still seeks after that godly character which not only draws her closer to the Savior, but also speaks a positive testimony to those she comes in contact with.   Do I emulate that?  Not always. Heck, not often – but I can desire it.

I’ll admit there is a nagging fear that if someone says to a fellow co-worker, “Did you know Norm’s a Christian,” that the person hearing those words would say “Really!!!???”  So everyday I try to keep things in check. To be sensitive to my words and actions. It’s difficult because in some respects I have “arrived” at the person I am and not the person I want to become. There’s a big difference between the two!

“…Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ…with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel.”    (Ph. 1:27)

Is Anger the Issue?

In James 1:19-20 we read the following:  You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness.  There’s an assumption that “anger” and how “anger does not produce the righteousness of God” is the main issue here. But is it the central issue?

Anger is often the downfall of many including myself. I find anger to be something that all too often percolates on the surface of my soul just waiting to boil over. And when it does it seems that nothing good is ever the result. That does not mean there isn’t a time for appropriate anger or ,as some like to call it, “righteous anger.” The most famous biblical example is Jesus’ anger at the money changers in the temple making the house of God a den of thieves and robbers instead of a house of prayer.  Paul also gets frustrated and lashes out at the Corinthian congregation for violating the intent and meaning behind the Eucharist.  So anger, as an emotion – under control – is not always unhealthy. For most of us however the issue is under control.  Nevertheless….

James’ point to his listeners is really three-fold;  1) Quick to listen, 2) slow to speak and 3) slow to anger.  It could be concluded that the issues behind anger may indeed be our lack of ability when it comes to listening and speaking. Many times anger is a result of misunderstood words or actions.  What we think we observe is not necessarily what is real.  What we think we heard is not always the point of the conversation.  Often we react to our perceptions instead of seeking clarification or understanding. In conversations we often fail to actively listen instead we simply bide our time until it’s our turn to talk.  Consequently we miss entirely the person’s point.  In personal relationships it is extremely important that we learn good listening skills and be patient when what we often want to do is interrupt or lash out with stinging words and insults.  I submit, as I believe James does, the consequence of poor listening and hastened speech is anger. If we can get the first two elements right anger is often put aside and finds no place to surface.

It’s also important to note  that “anger does not produce the righteousness of God.” Whatever situation James is referring to here he makes it abundantly clear the kind of anger he is speaking about does not, will not and can not produce the righteousness of God. As the writer of Proverbs notes; “When there are many words transgression is unavoidable.”[1]  And James makes no caveat for “righteous anger” or justified anger. There’s no getting off the hook on this one. Anger does not reflect godly character or Christ-like demeanor.   I’m not certain James would say it NEVER does since he admonishes his listeners to be “slow to anger” but at least in this instruction to his readers, there appears to be no evidence for justification.

So, is anger the issue? It certainly seems to dominate these two verses. But as many of us know, later on James will spend a good deal of time talking about the “tongue” and how it creates its own folly. Consequently I believe the “anger” James is referring to is a symptom of poor listening and hastened speech. A three-legged stool that falters should any of the legs be missing.

[1] Prov 10:19a

A Revelation From God

When was the last time you made a statement so profound everyone sat up and took notice?

There are several key statements in scripture that serve to change the way people think about things – love, money, stature, marriage, etc. And there are a select few statements that can and should change the way we think about God.

There are times when I’m not sure how or what I think about God and His Son Jesus Christ. Usually, when I come to conclude I have a solid understanding of God I read something in scripture that makes it abundantly clear I really know nothing about God.  My ways will never be His ways, my thoughts His thoughts. When I think I’ve numbered the stars another one appears on the horizon to let me know I’m by no means capable of thinking rightly about the divine. It’s sobering indeed.

In a section of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is asking his disciples “who do people say the Son of Man is?” They respond with a variety of personalities. Then he queries further and asks “Who do you say that I am?” To which Peter responds, “You are the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God.”  This was not only a very bold statement, it was a statement representing a conclusion which Peter could not have come to by his own devices as confirmed by Jesus’ response: “…Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in Heaven.” [1] Now this was not the first time someone had recognized Jesus as the Messiah. Andrew, when initially going to find his brother Peter said to him “We have found the Messiah.” Nevertheless, the statement by Peter struck a chord in such a way that Jesus made it clear how and by whom this understanding came about.

As I was reading the passage in Matthew I wondered was it a recognition that Jesus was the Son of the living God [2] that set Peter’s declaration apart from Andrew’s?  Was the recognition that Jesus was not only the Messiah but ALSO the Son of the living God that differentiated the two? Could it have been an understanding of the role that Jesus was to flesh out in God’s Kingdom that made the difference? That is, he was not the messiah/political ruler come to re-establish Israel, perhaps Andrew’s understanding, rather he WAS God’s only begotten Son come to provide deliverance for all people and bring them to a right relationship with God.  My hunch is it was the latter. Peter was not just acknowledging Jesus as the deliverer of Israel, he was acknowledging him as the King, Lord, Savior and Messiah for all mankind. Jesus was not just a prophet coming to bring a message of insurrection against Rome, he was the incarnation of the living God who had come to seek and to save that which was lost. Peter nailed it!!!

Lest we think “end of story”, as students of scripture we know that in Acts Peter gets a further revelation from and about God that expands not only his original knowledge of the divine, but his understanding of how God relates to all men – Jew and Gentile. It was another step in Peter’s maturing process. Another revelation from God.

When it comes to our thinking about God and His Son, it’s a good idea to wait for God to reveal Himself to us through the Scripture. What we know of Him today may be nothing compared to what we learn of Him “tomorrow.” Like Peter our initial lesson in “theology” will undoubtedly find more lessons down the road if our heart and minds remain open and receptive.

_______

[1] Matthew 16:13-17, cp. Luke 9:20 and Mark 8:29

[2] In the original language there are four articles in the overall statement;  the Christ, the Son of the God, the living. Does this make the statement any more bold or revealing? Not really, but it’s an interesting observation.

General Notes: The statement by Peter is intriguing also for what it does not say. He says nothing about the Holy Spirit. He says nothing about sacrifice or an echo of “the lamb of God” motif. He does not try to equate the Father with the Son other than the parental relationship as described.  His declaration, as “revealed” by the Father God is clear and concise – Messiah, Son of God. It is also interesting to note that Luke dramatically shortens Peter’s confession to “the Christ of God.”    Was that because Luke was not there to hear the confession?  Mark records Peter as simply saying “You are the Christ.”    Do either of these shortened versions make the observation less powerful or less revealing?   Add to this the fact that Jesus’ intimate response to Peter is missing in Mark and Luke other than a response for the disciples to “tell no one” about their recognition. Does that make Peter’s response in Matthew muted in some fashion?  I’m not certain I know the answers to any of those questions. What I do know is this…what all three have in common is a recognition that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah – the common thread throughout the Gospels.