A Discussion About Faith


1. The Scriptures and Tradition suggest the Jesus Christ died for our sins.  Christians often say that we are to "accept it in faith."  What does that mean?

2. Well, at the very least, it probably means something like what we mean when we talk about accepting any relationship "in trust" or "with fidelity."  Since what is being revealed – what is being offered – is not just information, but God Himself, the response that is being invited is to open oneself up fully to the Other (in this case, God).  Doesn't every invitation of love involve accepting and responding to the invitation with faith, hope, and love?

Faith = Believing in the love.
Hope = Being open to the new possibilities that the love opens up for you.
Love = Now not only "receiving" love, but returning that love in thanksgiving and being animated by love yourself.

3. When you think about the concept of accepting God's invitation in faith, perhaps it might help to think of it in terms of the related term, "fidelity."  Is it possible to have a true, honest, open relationship without fidelity?

4. Talking about it in this way shows us that, when we are talking about entering into a "relationship with God" and about "entering into a communion of love," we definitely aren't – far from it – talking about something soft and squishy, warm and fuzzy, waterfalls and guitar music.  Love – true love – isn't just about having mushy emotions or feelings that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.  True love (as any parent will tell you) involves commitment ; it involves work and restraint and self-discipline;  it often involves (usually involves?) putting the other person first and not putting yourself first all the time; it involves justice and decency ;  it involves willing the good, hoping for the best, and making that a reality through one's actions as much as possible.
 
5. Think about this as well:  If someone invites you into a relationship of love (only because they love you, perhaps even in spite of yourself), and then you spit in their face and think, "Well, that's that"; and sometime later, you find out that, in spite of all that, they still spoke out on your behalf before people who were trying to kick you out of school; what would "accepting that in faith" mean?

Wouldn't that mean something like the following:

A) You'd have to believe that the person actually did it (that they actually stood up for you):  a historical truth.
B) You'd have to believe the person did it out of love (and not just to jerk you around or pull your chain or manipulate you):  an interpretation of that historical truth.  And thus:
C) You'd be called upon – though not forced – to go ahead and enter into that friendship.  Indeed, you might have to think back over everything that person did to you over the weeks or months or years of your prior "acquaintance" and perhaps re-examine those events in light of this new information/realization: "Hmm, this person actually cares for me.  This person is actually on my side , trying to help me out.  What else have I been missing here?"  You might then say to yourself, "Gee, I'd like more of this.  I should accept this offer of friendship."  You would be responding to the truth you know and believe in.

6. But ask yourself this:  Would you not be loved (by the other person) if you didn't:

A) didn't know (or believe) that the person had actually defended you in front of others; or: 
B) didn't believe that they had done it out of love or concern for you?

7. No, you'd still be loved, but you wouldn't necessarily be getting the full benefits of that love.  (They're still fine;  they did a good deed.  You would be the one who would be missing out.)

8. And of course, the possibility exists that you might:

A) believe that they had defended you, and even
B) believe that they had done this act out of love or friendship, but
C) you just might not care.  You might think, "What a sucker!" or "That's just weird," or "I don't really understand why she did it – that is, I don't understand why she cares – and while I'm glad she did it rather than not, I still don't want anything to do with her or her kind of life."  That is still possible.  You aren't forced to respond with gratitude or love.  But again, though you would still be loved, you wouldn't necessarily be getting the full benefits available to you from receiving that love.  (They're still fine; you're the one who would be missing out.)

9. So, analogously, would God not love you if you didn't know (or believe) that God even existed?  (That is, you didn't know or believe in the historical fact?)

10. No. But it certainly makes it much more difficult to enter into that eternal communion of love God is offering if you don't think it even exists.  Wouldn't it be better to know (through faith: the way we have to "know" love) that there exists someone who does love you (in this case, infinitely, and in spite of your sins), and that you were created out of love in order to share love?  Wouldn't it be better to know (through faith) rather than not to know?  Would it make a difference in your life?  

11. Would God not love you if you thought that a "God" existed, but you didn't believe that He loved you, was on your side, and wanted the best for you?  (In other words, if you had heard the historical account, accepted that it happened historically, but didn't accept the same intepretation of the events.)

12. No, God would still love you.  But again, it certainly makes it much more difficult for you to enter into that eternal communion of love with God if you think that God hates you or that He doesn't give a damn about you.  Wouldn't it be better to know (through faith: the way we have to "know" love) that God does love you, if in fact it is true?  (Although granted, there's no point in simply indulging ourselves in wishful thinking.)  Would it make a difference in your life?

13. Would God not love you if you thought that "God" existed, and you even believed that He loved you, but you didn't know that He loved you so much that He was willing to die for you (and in fact, had actually died for you)? (That is, you believe in God, but either don't know about Christ or don't believe Christ was God incarnate.)

14. No, but wouldn't it be better to know the extent of God's love, and indeed, the actual manifestations of that love in actual deeds?  Would that make a difference in your life?  It wouldn't necessarily change God or God's love, but it might very well change you and change the way you live your life; although, admittedly, then again, it might not.  You might be like the guy who:

A) believes that the person did the good turn for him,
B) believes that the person did it out of love or concern, but quite frankly,
C) just doesn't care.  "I'm glad you did it, rather than not, but I'm not really grateful.  It's not going to change the way I look at you, and it's not going to change the way I live my life.  It's information (you did that, for such-and-such a reason), the same way I have information about any historical event (the abolitionist John Brown attacked the Federal Armory at Harper's Ferry because he was angry at slavery and wanted to arm a slave revolt – OK, I know that, but it doesn't change my life – and certainly not in the way it might have changed a black slave's life in the South if he or she had found that out.  It's just information; not something that inspires either hope or love in return.)

15. Consider the difference between:

A) A mere "event" (Yes, it happened, so what?  Life goes on without change.)
B) An event that is "significant" (It signifies something -- something important.  Something changes.)
C) An event that is a "promise."  (The event signifies something important, something positive.  I am filled with a new hope.)

16. So, "accepting this person Jesus Christ in faith" means a number of things:

A) accepting the fact that it happened (although this is merely the beginning:  a kind of sine qua non for the rest); and
B) believing that it happened to show how much God was willing to sacrifice for us (namely, nothing less than everything) and how much He loved us; and
C) it means "believing" (accepting it in your heart, mind, and soul) in the same way that you truly believe someone loves you, and you decide to love that person in return (with your whole heart, mind, and soul).

17. Again, let me repeat.  Would God not love you if you:

A) didn't know or believe that what Jesus did had actually happened historically; or
B) even if you believed that something happened historically (some guy died on a cross), you didn't believe that it had happened to show God's infinite love for mankind; or,
C) if you didn't choose to love God (and neighbor) in return?

18. No.  But that's not bad for God. It might, however, be bad for you. Not because God hates you now and will "punish" you with bolts of lightening or something, but primarily because you're missing out on what makes life worth living:  namely, sharing in that commuion of love.  Or to put it another way, we might say: "It's not that God wouldn't love you if you rejected Him (in either way A, B, or C), but wouldn't it be better for you if you actually did believe in that love, accepted that love, and embraced it, loving in return?"

19. That is the fundamental question you have to ask yourself.

20. Now, is it conceivable that a person might in some sense "believe in" or "accept" God's love -- in other words, could a person enter into that loving communion with God -- without knowing that God did this particular, incredible act of love (namely, call Abraham, make the covenant, give the Law, speak through the prophets, and die for us on a cross)?  In other words, could a person enter into a relationship with God, not knowing everything about God's loving and saving acts?

21. It might well be possible.  And although it might be even better for a person to know about that particular, incredible, and really decisive act of love that happened with Jesus Christ, there would be no point in trying to force someone to believe in it and be grateful for it, would there?  How could you force them to believe in love, and then to be grateful for that love in return?  All you can do is invite them.  If they don't accept the invitation, then perhaps all you can do is:

A) keep loving them even more;
B) make sure the problem isn't in the way you made the invitation (which can sometimes be off-putting); and
C) keep the invitation open and keep embodying that love in your own life – perfecting it, purifying it from selfishness –  so that the loving communion you share looks and is as good as it can be.  (Let's assume that "fooling them" isn't going to work. No one is interested in "fake" love, after all.)

22. But whatever we can or cannot say about other people (and let's be honest, in most cases, we don't know whether they do what they do out of love or not – that's just not the sort of information we have access to), we can perhaps say this:


23. If you don't believe you're loved (and that would be true of others as well;  but again, we just don't have window into their hearts – it's hard enough to know what's going on in our own hearts) – but if you don't believe you're loved,  that makes entering into the communion of love impossible.  Or if you believe you're loved, but still reject it, that too makes entering into the communion of love impossible.  And that separates you from the life and flourishing that would come from entering into that relationship with God.

24. There's just no way around it, and we must be very honest about this: it is very possible to say a big, fat no to the invitation.  You are certainly free not to accept it in faith, and with hope and love.

25. The love would still be there; but if you reject it – either because you don't believe it, or you just don't care – then there is simply no way of enjoying its benefits.

26. There is no way to get the benefits of commitment without commitment.  You can't get the benefits of an honest, open, loving relationship without the honest, open, loving relationship (along with all the work, all the discipline and self-restraint, and all the kindness, good will, and good works that such a relationship entails).  It's just not possible.  It's not a question of God "punishing" you; it's just not possible for you to get the benefits of a loving relationship, if you don't believe in it, accept it, and embrace it, loving faithfully in return.  To think otherwise, is just pure foolishness.  It's to engage in a dangerous illusion.  It's not living in the real world.  It's like thinking you can go out into the desert without any water. It's like being a plant and thinking that you can live and thrive without the sun: by putting yourself in a dark closet somewhere.  If you don't have water, or the sun, or, more to the point,  a community of persons with whom you can share fully in an honest, open, loving way, and to whom you show a fidelity free from selfishness, injury, and ill will, if you don't accept the gift of those things, you just can't survive, let alone thrive.

27. If you do accept those things, however, and enter into that eternal communion of love – share, to a greater and greater extent in the divine nature – this is what makes life – real life, eternal life – possible.

28. At least that is what the Catholic Church teaches.  In fact, everything else the Catholic Church teaches is pretty much a development of that central, fundamental revelation.

So, to sum up:

1. Faith is man's response to the self-revelation of God.  This response is one in which "man entrusts his whole self freely to God, offering 'the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals.'"  This is not a vague feeling without content.  It has content, but that content is fundamentally God himself, God as he has revealed himself in history with men.

2. The response of faith is made possible by God.  God comes to man first -- in love -- and the light of His truth enlightens us.  So faith is a gift of the illuminating grace of God (a grace which is God's gift of Himself to us).  The conviction of faith comes not from external reasons or from one's own inner insights, but from God himself, who makes his truth evident.  (Analogously, think about what makes possible the response of love even in a human relationship.  Does the conviction of faith, hope, and love come from "external reasons" or "from one's own inner insights"?  Or is it made possible by the love of the other?)

3. Though the response of faith is made possible by God, faith remains a free and responsible human act.  Neither reason alone nor the will alone nor feeling alone is sufficient.  (Once again, think about the analogy with human love.  Which of those three would be sufficient unto itself.  What makes love?)  In faith, the entire man, with all his questions (especially the fundamental questions about meaning and purpose), all his hopes (without which he cannot survive), and disappointments (suffering is a part of life), is at stake.  So the faithful response must come from on'es entire existence and one's entire life.  According to St. Augustine, three elements belong to the act of faith:  the assent of reason, the consent of the will, and then the decision to proceed to God (the Father), through God (the Son), and with God (animated by God's own Spirit).

4. Since faith is both wholly the act of God and wholly the act ofman, it re-enacts God's history with men here and now (in me).  Faith is encounter, communion, and frienship with God.  Thus it is the fulfillment of the meaning of human life, the becoming-while of the entire man. 

Faith is an all-encompassing project of life and an attitude toward the whole of existence.

That is why FAITH is bound up so intimately to HOPE and LOVE.

FAITH = accepting the love of God
HOPE = the attitude that accepting the love of God engenders in you, so that:
LOVE = you return God's love, by loving Him in return, and loving all those loved by Him (that is, all His creation).

Remember, however, "faith" in this sense doesn't mean something "non-rational" in the sense of "irrational."  There can be more reasonable and less reasonable responses to the fundamental questions of life.  There can be "faiths" that don't really adequately answer the fundamental questions.  Others don't endure through suffering.  Others avoid the fundamental questions altogether.  Others don't do justice to the full humanity and complexity of the human person.  Others are entirely unreasonable:  that is, they contradict reason altogether.  Note that there might be a big difference between those realities that transcend man's ability to grasp it fully by reason alone (but are not contradict reason altogether), and those things that do contradict reason altogether.

How, for example, do you prove love?  Isn't it something that transcends our "clear and distinct ideas"?  Something that defies quantification?  And yet, there can be assertions of "love" that are unreasonable or contrary to reason.  Beating your wife.  Manipulating by lying or cheating.  So, although love may in many ways transcend the grasp of reason, that doesn't mean that it should be entirely unreasonable or irrational.