c l a s s i c a l
Theologian and Professor at Eastern University Dr. Peter Enns does not believe in God anymore (link). Well, of course, he does; he is just finding new ways to express his theistic beliefs. In a recent blogpost, he explains that belief in God indicates a set of ideas about God which could, at least in theory, "make their way into other parts" of his being. He writes:
What I deduce from Dr. Enn's comments is this: If making certain our various beliefs about God being "lined up as they should be" is losing its luster, perhaps we should consider trusting God instead. I wonder how the apostle Paul would have reacted to such a statement, especially in light of his cultural and religious experiences on Mars Hill. Noticing the objects of worship, he carefully made reference to the correct God -- the only living and true God (cf. Acts 17:22-28). I am sorry, but I am not convinced of either the wisdom or the viability of Dr. Enns' views.
After trusting in Christ as Lord and Savior in May, 1995, I was thereafter taught that belief or faith in God through Christ was trust. I was taught that God saved me by grace through belief (faith) in Christ; hence that belief (faith) was synonymous with trusting that God had saved me by grace in Christ, a truth which Dr. Enns himself confesses with regard to the word belief, using the faith of Abraham as an example.
But carefully note our words: belief, faith, trust. All three words, theologically, are used synonymously. In a sense, I am defining the concepts of these words by themselves. I might just as well concede the popular saying: "It is what it is." But that saying is, on a technical level, a logical fallacy: it is a defining of a thing by itself. To what does "it" refer, and what are we communicating by stating that "it" is what it is? Interpretation: an orange is an orange. But what is an orange?
In college I was taught what the nature of faith is -- a response to the gracious activity of the Holy Spirit. But this particular category of faith is saving faith, not a mere wishful thinking ("hope-so" faith), nor a conviction of certainty (cf. Heb. 11:1), or even the gift of faith (cf. 1 Cor. 12:10) -- an unshakeable trusting in God given to certain believers to encourage or build up those in the body of Christ. Even so, the forms of faith here differ from various categorical beliefs (faiths) that I hold about God.
For example, I believe (have faith) that God is one in essence and three in person. I do not merely wish for that reality; though I have no reason to wish, hope, or in such a sense believe otherwise. I think the Bible teaches that God is one in essence and three in person. One might even suggest that this belief (faith) is a response to the activity of the Holy Spirit working in my mind as I read Scripture, aiding me to interpret correctly that God is one in essence and three in person.
But the manner in which Dr. Enns is using the word believe, contrasting it somewhat with the word trust, is, for me at least, problematic. I mean, he is certainly making a clear distinction between maintaining certain beliefs about God (concluding with a "belief system"), rather than believing in God, and also claiming that trusting God is superior to any perceived or received dogmas (i.e., "belief systems").
I do not express my thoughts on this matter in such a vein as does Dr. Enns -- the reason being that such a view, as I see it, carries the harmful potential at undermining the integrity and discipline of theology. The manner in which he is asking me to think leads me to sense that I am being asked to trust in God regardless or in spite of my "belief systems." But I already trust God, in every circumstance, as well as believe in Him. As a matter of fact, I do not distinguish so sharply between believing in Him and trusting in Him from moment to moment. Perhaps this is the reason why Dr. Enns' post did not have the impact on me that it may have had on others.
I am left a little perplexed even on the matter of belief systems, though. Certainly our respective theological belief systems affect how we think, feel, and even behave (though we always carry the potential to act contrary to our moral or ethical beliefs). My theology is shaped by what I believe Scripture teaches; and those beliefs compliment my trusting in the unblemished character of God.
Again, then, I have difficulty in parsing so sharply between my beliefs about God and believing or trusting God. Are my beliefs about God a benign, philosophical construct that has little to no connection with my daily routine? Can I live my life in Christ with beliefs which neither advise nor buttress my trust in an unfailing God? Dr. Enns writes: "'Believing in God' doesn't get you to that place Jesus is describing here [with regard to living a worry-free life]. Belief leaves room for worry. Trust explodes it." Again, I disagree.
Because I do not view my beliefs about God, nor my believing in God, to differ from trusting God, I find no viable reason to begin making such sharp distinctions, claiming to no longer believe in God but rather to be trusting in God. For me the one implies the other.
The older I get, making sure all my "beliefs" of God are lined up as they should be loses more and more of its luster. I see the Bible focusing a lot more on something far more demanding: trust.Peculiar: the older I get, making sure all my "beliefs" of God are lined up as they should be -- according to the teachings of God's inerrant word -- becomes increasingly more precious to me.
What I deduce from Dr. Enn's comments is this: If making certain our various beliefs about God being "lined up as they should be" is losing its luster, perhaps we should consider trusting God instead. I wonder how the apostle Paul would have reacted to such a statement, especially in light of his cultural and religious experiences on Mars Hill. Noticing the objects of worship, he carefully made reference to the correct God -- the only living and true God (cf. Acts 17:22-28). I am sorry, but I am not convinced of either the wisdom or the viability of Dr. Enns' views.
After trusting in Christ as Lord and Savior in May, 1995, I was thereafter taught that belief or faith in God through Christ was trust. I was taught that God saved me by grace through belief (faith) in Christ; hence that belief (faith) was synonymous with trusting that God had saved me by grace in Christ, a truth which Dr. Enns himself confesses with regard to the word belief, using the faith of Abraham as an example.
But carefully note our words: belief, faith, trust. All three words, theologically, are used synonymously. In a sense, I am defining the concepts of these words by themselves. I might just as well concede the popular saying: "It is what it is." But that saying is, on a technical level, a logical fallacy: it is a defining of a thing by itself. To what does "it" refer, and what are we communicating by stating that "it" is what it is? Interpretation: an orange is an orange. But what is an orange?
In college I was taught what the nature of faith is -- a response to the gracious activity of the Holy Spirit. But this particular category of faith is saving faith, not a mere wishful thinking ("hope-so" faith), nor a conviction of certainty (cf. Heb. 11:1), or even the gift of faith (cf. 1 Cor. 12:10) -- an unshakeable trusting in God given to certain believers to encourage or build up those in the body of Christ. Even so, the forms of faith here differ from various categorical beliefs (faiths) that I hold about God.
For example, I believe (have faith) that God is one in essence and three in person. I do not merely wish for that reality; though I have no reason to wish, hope, or in such a sense believe otherwise. I think the Bible teaches that God is one in essence and three in person. One might even suggest that this belief (faith) is a response to the activity of the Holy Spirit working in my mind as I read Scripture, aiding me to interpret correctly that God is one in essence and three in person.
But the manner in which Dr. Enns is using the word believe, contrasting it somewhat with the word trust, is, for me at least, problematic. I mean, he is certainly making a clear distinction between maintaining certain beliefs about God (concluding with a "belief system"), rather than believing in God, and also claiming that trusting God is superior to any perceived or received dogmas (i.e., "belief systems").
I do not express my thoughts on this matter in such a vein as does Dr. Enns -- the reason being that such a view, as I see it, carries the harmful potential at undermining the integrity and discipline of theology. The manner in which he is asking me to think leads me to sense that I am being asked to trust in God regardless or in spite of my "belief systems." But I already trust God, in every circumstance, as well as believe in Him. As a matter of fact, I do not distinguish so sharply between believing in Him and trusting in Him from moment to moment. Perhaps this is the reason why Dr. Enns' post did not have the impact on me that it may have had on others.
I am left a little perplexed even on the matter of belief systems, though. Certainly our respective theological belief systems affect how we think, feel, and even behave (though we always carry the potential to act contrary to our moral or ethical beliefs). My theology is shaped by what I believe Scripture teaches; and those beliefs compliment my trusting in the unblemished character of God.
Again, then, I have difficulty in parsing so sharply between my beliefs about God and believing or trusting God. Are my beliefs about God a benign, philosophical construct that has little to no connection with my daily routine? Can I live my life in Christ with beliefs which neither advise nor buttress my trust in an unfailing God? Dr. Enns writes: "'Believing in God' doesn't get you to that place Jesus is describing here [with regard to living a worry-free life]. Belief leaves room for worry. Trust explodes it." Again, I disagree.
Because I do not view my beliefs about God, nor my believing in God, to differ from trusting God, I find no viable reason to begin making such sharp distinctions, claiming to no longer believe in God but rather to be trusting in God. For me the one implies the other.
I believe the problem arises because of the spiritual dilution of the word “believe”. That word used to carry a more open and profound sense of commitment and in some countries it still does as it applies to believing on Christ. But in the west it has taken a more acceptable concept which generally elicits very little commitment. As old Paris Reidhead used to say we arrived at a point where you could present a few doctrinal tenants and if a person said “uh-huh” at the right times he was not only considered a believer but he was deemed a fundamentalist.
ReplyDeleteSo the linguistic maze notwithstanding, it must be obvious to us that in the west our accommodating, hedonistic, and man centered culture has affected and infected the faith once delivered to the saints. The average pew dweller can attend and be active in a local church while continuing to live a most unremarkable life with a fallen culture. His lifestyle is indistinguishable from the good neighbor next door who is agnostic or the great family of Mormons on his other side. In fact, when the 4th of July comes around that church member stands hand in hand with an amalgam of unbelievers, cultists, and believers of all stripes.
And just what does our faith cost us in this culture as it now exists? Nothing at all. In fact we search out ways that our faith can benefit us and we loudly complain when we are forced to endure inconveniences or tax increases which affect unbelievers as well.
So if this man is suggesting that trusting must be separated from believing as it is now understood and practiced here in the west, according to that understanding I would say he is correct. Demons believe, but true faith brings forth fruit which should identify a follower of Jesus with a lifestyle and passions and thought processes that are completely at odds with everything the culture believes and practices. But, sadly, the modern belief system is overwhelmingly doctrinal with a few benign ecclesiastical practices added. And that is what passes as “believing”. The Book of Acts and the Book of James as well as the gospels indicate otherwise.
That Paris Reidhead quote was hilarious!
DeleteIf the point was to emphasize the difference between knowing God and knowing about God I could say, "Here, here!" But I suspect that something more sinister is afoot: the arrogation of human intellect and the pride of self over the ancient witness of the written word. The gospel proclamation as it was recorded in the gospels and Acts began with the call to repent, and was founded upon the literalness, the actuality, of a dead guy coming back to life after being dead and buried. Buying into that, I would think, should produce the obedience of faith, which is premised by a disavowal of one's own notions and a trusting acceptance of those that come from the one who is proven Lord by rising from the dead. Maybe we need to read Romans 6 closer in this day and age and realize Christ was not alone on that cross.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good perspective, I think. I'll tell you what urks me: Dr. Enns' title "Why I Don't Believe in God Anymore." I mean, really? How typical. I've come to expect such wanna-be clever and savvy titles from our postmodern era. I just rolled my eyes and thought: "figures." I would think we're no longer intrigued or wowed by such rhetoric. We've come to expect it; it doesn't seem effective anymore.
DeleteAnd then there's the actual post. I agree with pastor Rick (above) that the word "believe" has come to connote something unbiblical and rather cultural or nominally Christian at best. But I think the way to combat that tragedy is to educate, not reinvent. I see Dr. Enns' post as an attempt (and a failed one at that) to reinvent. I remain unconvinced.
I think that Enns's comments must be understood in light of what he has written elsewhere. Here is a man who, in my understanding, denies the historicity of much of the Old Testament - for example, there was no Adam, Darwinian evolution is responsible for the origin of mankind, the stories of Noah, Babel, Abraham, and the conquest of Canaan are of dubious factuality, and the OT depicts God as acting in morally questionable ways. He also believes that the Bible contains irresolvable contradictions and scientific errors. He raises some good points in his work; we should not insist that there are no difficulties within our worldview, and we should not react to such difficulties with knee-jerk fundamentalism. But Enns strikes me as someone who, much like Bart Ehrman, casually dismisses plausible, thoughtful scholarly solutions to the problems he cites.
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, I don't find it particularly surprising that Enns is growing less concerned with the truthfulness and/or coherence of his theology. The unbiblical and anti-intellectual divorce of relational trust from mental belief is a troubling trend in the (post-)modern church.
Dave,
DeleteYes, I agree with you wholeheartedly, putting his comments and worldview in its proper context is vital.
I think this is a good point, as well: He raises some good points in his work; we should not insist that there are no difficulties within our worldview, and we should not react to such difficulties with knee-jerk fundamentalism.
I wonder, what shall we call those like Dr. Enns who refuse plausible explanations to Bible difficulties with near knee-jerk reactions, haha? "Liberal" is just too broad a term, no?
Haha, yes, I think people like Enns are sometimes guilty of their own sort of "fundamentalism." And you're right...I'm not sure if "liberal" is quite the right term. Sometimes I have gotten the sense that he is sort of a "naive realist" when it comes to science - "science" (meaning current consensus of the scientific establishment) has shown us that humans can't be descended from a single pair, therefore, Adam and Eve couldn't have really existed.
ReplyDeleteSo if I do not believe in the 24 hour creation day, does that mean I am "liberal"? How about a believer who espouses everything about Jesus (miracle, virgin birth, penal death, bodily resurrection) but has some doubts about the story of Jonah (for instance) have to be literal and not metaphorical. Do I have to see that person as "liberal"?
ReplyDeleteAnd who gets the liberty to set the standard(s) for naming what is considered liberal? Usually it's a conservative's ammunition for whatever does not comport with what I believe; which works in the opposite as well: hence, an inerrantist like me is called a "fundamentalist"! Oh, the humanity! :^)
DeleteI believe in inerrancy however not in the strict and rigid way many define it and would consider all others as liberal. In many things I am uncertain, although I have come to the conclusion that a person can be saved and love and serve Jesus without being unambiguously pinned down about the story of Jonah etc.. In full disclosure I believe someone must believe in the deity of Christ and a salvation by faith alone, but I cannot say that if a person has some problems with the Trinity that he cannot be saved. I do recognize, though, that many if not most times those that deny the Trinity also deny the deity of Christ. My list of demands has shrunk over the years. And I have seen and known many people whose doctrinal orthodoxy was impeccable, and who cast a net of condemnation over anyone who staryed from their list, but whose life and practice and speech were anything but Christlike.
ReplyDeleteI believe it may be more important to have our lives be inerrant prisms of Christ than believe in the verbal, plenary, and all the rest concerning the Scriptures. In these last days, especially since the Industrial Revolution, doctrinal orthodoxy has muscled out expressive orthopraxy. In the orthodox community there is MUCH latitude given for orthopraxy while very little latitude given to docntrinal orthodoxy.