Godless societies generally produce ungodly individuals, hence individual faith should produce a godliness in people that’s expression is not only visible to others but appreciated by others.
Obligations of faith ??? Faith in what? Are we still talking from a world-view of Christianity? Or even of a world-view of a God of any sort who tends the world and its fate?
My faith is in human nature in whatever stage of evolution we find ourselves at present. It’s a very low state, to be sure, and we have an obligation, therefore, to try to move more quickly along that path, living in love. Now, it is true, that for my particular spot in life, I am using Jesus as my example of how that love works itself into every single moment of a person’s life. And, the fact that it might lead to one’s early death must be taken into account.
But, the fact that he also cautioned us not to raise arms least we be killed by the sword ourselves, I am a pacifist.
Faith and religion are words that are used interchangeably, just as God and Christ; however, they do not mean the same thing. Religion is an outward expression that signifies faith in God in an organized fashion; but faith in God is individual and very personal assurance of a power, force, or being much greater than one’s self which is unknown, unknowable, yet mighty, powerful and influentia,l to whom which or what we assign the reason for our earth, the Sun and Moon, the planets, the universe and all heavenly bodies as well as all life known and unknown. We acknowledge this in the Christian religion in the Nicene Creed when we speak of God as the maker of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible. In my view, it is also acknowledged in the words of John that; In my Father’s house (which is this universe and any others that might exist), there are many mansions (suns, moons, stars, planets and other heavenly bodies)–my individual interpretation.
Even before I joined the Jaycees organization, whose Creed states, in the first line, that we believe: “Faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life”, I had decided that faith in the unknown and unknowable God was most important to my life. As I observe the universe and even simple things as trees that grow and bear fruit and birds that gather and fly in a formation to appear as one single large bird to dissuade attacks by hawks; as I observe the sunlight, the starlight and moonlight, and even the darkness as well as things like lightning and thunder and the effects if the tides of the oceans under the influence of the moon, I know, intellectually and with certainty that some sort of power and wisdom preceeded our earth and all life. I have asked, and continue to ask: “Could all of this have come from nothing?” This begs the other question: “Then what is nothing, if it produces all this?” I have concluded that “nothing” must be “something”–a force or forces; an Entity or Being– to have produced all this and more that we do not yet understand from which I deduce that: Whoever, whichever or whatever force produced (created) life and our world–THIS IS GOD TO ME!
My background is rooted in the Christian religion, so my early concept of God developed from Christian lessons and my conception of the principles in which I was being schooled; however, from an early age I developed doubts and confusion from the Biblical account of Genesis. I experienced difficulty concerning man’s sin of eating of the “forbidden fruit” from the tree that produced knowledge of good and evil, which was planted by the same God, who planted the tree before the existence of Adan and Eve, and eventually looked at the world afterwards and pronounced it to be “good”. To my simple mind, everything that happened in the Garden of Eden was part of the “Good” that God acknowledged. This line of thought and other thoughts that are discussed in more detail in my still unpublished book about God, the Christian religion and me, have provided me with a concept of God that many might have difficulty in accepting.
Later in life, while studying at a university, I came across a book (currently out of print, or because of a not totally effective search on my part) written by a Judge West, and titled: Judge West Speaks. Judge West expressed total faith in God and he expressed the view that if the world was considered “good” by God after the seven biblical days, then it must still be “good” now. He offered the view that we consider “good” as light, and “evil” as darkness. Then he pointed out that whenever we come across a shadow (darkness), we are assured of one thing–there must be a light somewhere, but something has come between us and the light. He then advised that it was our duty, when this happens, to seek oit the source of light that was being blocked out from view. This thinking has now become a permanent part of my philosophy of life.
Today, I am convinced that all things work together for “good” in the end. However, mankind’s problem is that we expect to experience, or have knowledge of that “good” during our brief life spans of 75 to 100 years or so in a world that is 5 billion years old in a universe that is 15 billion years young.
In the lyrics of the chorus of a song from my unpublished work, which is titled: As God wills it to be”, I write:
“Whoever, or which Presence Created life, this is God to me
Whatever love may be, whatever love is, this is God to me
I see stars in the sky, I hear an infant’s cry, this–isGod–to me
The sun will always rise, day will follow night, AS GOD WILLS IT TO BE.
The issue that arises for me with this question is…”who” is obligated? It seems to imply a separation of myself from the Ground which my faith, intuition and some experience tell me is not there, even as my cultural conditioning and everyday experiences insist is there. My obligation, then, would seem to be to open to that which I truly am.
Unfortunately, I don’t get to control that. Whatever active steps I take to produce a desired result, the more I insert my big foot into the process. “Seek ye first the Kingdom…” strikes me as the appropriate wisdom for this issue, but seeking in a way that does not possess the process is a fine art that eludes me. Be available. Anything more is probably too much.
For me, faith begins with an internal spiritual experience. That is, I will have a surprise awareness of something that is very close and yet expansive at the same time – intimate and infinite, you might say. It’s an ongoing thing. My faith is always beginning. I could ignore these things or rationalize them away. Or I can explore them. When Moses came to a bush that was simultaneously burning and not burning, he was curious. So, the first obligation of faith is to be curious. What is this thing?
The next obligation is to be open to the experience and begin to develop trust in it. The mind can play tricks. Ask a lot of questions. Angels in biblical stories sometimes surprise people. Invariably, the first thing the angel says is: Don’t be afraid. For me, these stories are metaphorical descriptions of the process of opening to Spirit. The obligation to be open and unafraid can be difficult. It can be weird or uncomfortable or threatening or it can be so subtle that it’s easily dismissed. But the real thing is persistent and if attention is paid, it will grow stronger and more focused. The beginning of faith is always an invitation to relationship with God or the Great Whatever or the ground of being – however it’s defined and to whatever extent a person can delve into it. For a Christian, of course, this invitation comes through a human-shaped hole at the edge of our finite perception of the universe into the limitlessness of God.
The experience is internal and also intimate. To be open and trusting in a relationship is the beginning of love. This is the hallmark of faith. A person of faith is a person in (literally, within) love. Love is not static. We want to be loved. We want to feel love. We want to love. Love is also not entirely internal. It is what acts between us, attracting us, asking for our openness and trust. It’s something we can share. Love is simultaneously infinite and intimate, personal and inter-personal.
This transparency to God and others is simultaneously humbling and empowering. Tapping into the Great Whatever leads us to be greater. This does not necessarily mean more powerful or successful. It means we become more genuine, more of who we can be. The deeper this relationship can be cultivated the more a person’s unique abilities and talents are built up, for example. If those talents and abilities are not expressed or stifled, life tends to become less than satisfying. What good are talents and abilities if kept in a box on a shelf? When a person is doing what he loves, especially with or for others, when he’s playing to his strengths with all his ability, he’s often in a very satisfying place. He is being who he is meant to be. I think we find our highest joy in expressing our deepest gifts.
Faith’s obligations are internal and external, intimate and infinite. Imperfect and broken as we may be, by attending to faith’s obligations, we become conduits for Spirit. A person of faith is obliged to explore his spiritual curiosity and deepen his relationship with God and also reach out to others. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. For me, these are not commands that I must conform my life to but descriptions of how things work. Bottom line: faith’s obligations are entirely practical.
I’m posting this from Bob who couldn’t get his e-mail to talk with the site:
Thanks. The following is a slightly edited version of the beginning of my chapter on “faith” in /Faith, Belief, and Religion/.
In faith…Bob Traer
Beliefs often concern obligations, but faith is not belief. Faith is trust. Being a trusting person, being faithful, is always an aspiration and at times due to inspiration, but is never an obligation.
Originally belief and faith had the same personal meaning. To believe, the verb form of the Old English belief, meant to hold dear or to love. Faith comes from the Old French word /fei/, which means being loyal to a person as in keeping faith or as in being faithful. In the fourteenth century, as faith was used to translate the Latin /fides/, it began to supplant belief in English usage. In the centuries that followed belief became associated with holding an idea or affirming a proposition, whereas faith retained the old meaning of being loyal. The translation of the Bible into English played an important role in this regard. The King James Authorized Version of 1611 translated as faith what in Latin was /fides/ and in the original Greek was /pistis/. English translations of the Bible do not use faith and belief as synonyms. The Bible is about faith, not belief.
The language of faith in the Bible has shaped the use and understanding of faith in the English language. This is true whether or not one believes in God or is a Christian. The Bible has been at the heart of theology and literature in the English-speaking world for more than four centuries. What faith means in English, and how we use the word today, is directly related to the way that faith is used in the Christian Bible.
Because “believe” can refer to either belief or faith, its use has complicated our understanding of faith in English. This is not a factor in New Testament Greek, because the noun for/ pistis/ has its own verb, /pisteuo/. Thus, in the Christian Bible in its original Greek language, one sees clearly in the written words themselves that believing (/pisteuo/) means faith (/pistis/). In the English translation, however, to “believe” might be taken to mean belief, because in English “believe” can refer to either faith or belief, depending on its context. We need to keep in mind that Christians reading the Bible in its original Greek saw clearly that the word translated into English as believe means faith.
In the New Testament faith is primarily about trusting another person, being loyal to that person, being faithful to that person. In this sense, therefore, the New Testament not only defines the use of faith in the English language, but also implies that a person is one in whom we may have faith. Having a belief about something or someone is not very important in the English Bible. The New Testament does not invite persons to affirm certain ideas about Jesus as the Christ, but to have faith.
The object of that faith is Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, in almost nine out of ten instances faith appears in the New Testament without any object at all. Examples from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible include: “your faith has made you well” (Mt. 9:22), “when he saw their faith” (Mk. 2:5), “will he find faith on earth?” (Lk. 18:8), “cleansed their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9), “the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith” (Rom. 1:17), “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1), and so forth. This faith may be weak or strong. Jesus is concerned because his disciples have “little faith” (Mt. 8:26, 14:31, 16:8, Lk. 12:28), yet he tells them that they only need faith the size of “a grain of mustard” (Mt. 17:20, Lk. 17:6).
This use of faith gives it a life independent of an object. Faith in the English Bible is not merely something that is defined by what one has faith in, but describes an orientation towards another person or toward life in general. Faith is a word like love and hope, so it should not be surprising that in his first letter to the church at Corinth Paul uses these three words to speak of the greatest spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 13:13). Faith is a virtue like courage and reverence and thus did not until recently have a plural. Faith is a way of being, a way of living. Faith is a personal quality, a matter of character, an entrusting of oneself, a way of embracing others and all creation. In the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus directs this faith to God. In his letters to the early churches, Paul directs this faith to God in Christ.
To use faith without an object reveals that by naming the object of faith we tend to separate ourselves from that object—to create a duality between the person who has faith and the object of that person’s faith. In the letters attributed to Paul, faith means a mystical union with Christ and not simply trusting in an object named Jesus Christ. Faith in the New Testament is about a way of being that overcomes the separation of subject and object. Faith is a way of being united with God in Christ, not simply a matter of believing that there is a God.
The Bible has given shape to the language of faith in English and has played a central role in the literature as well as the religious life of English-speaking cultures. In the Bible faith often stands alone to represent a way of being and living. It also, as a noun or a verb, often refers to a person, primarily God, or Jesus as the one manifesting God. When believe is used in the Bible we have to be careful not to confuse faith with belief, because the modern notion of belief as holding an opinion (which developed after the sixteenth century) is not in the Bible.
The distinction in English between faith and belief is confirmed by the adjective “faithful,” which expresses the character of faith and is used in the English Bible to translate a Hebrew word meaning fidelity. Faithfulness also appears frequently in the Old Testament of the Bible. There are, however, no parallel words associated with belief. There is no concept in the English language of belief-ful or of belief-fulness. Belief does not tell us anything about a person’s character, so it does not take the form of an adjective. Belief refers to having an idea or an opinion about something. In itself, having a belief is neither good nor bad. But having faith, being faithful, and faithfulness (like having the other spiritual gifts of hope and love, and being hopeful and loving) are essentially good.
Like any virtue, faith may be misdirected or blind. Nevertheless, even as we hope to be loving persons, we also hope to be faithful.
I must admit to having a very hard time answering this question at first. As a Pagan and Unitarian Universalist, I have a faith that requires nothing of me; not even a belief in the divine. I am not required to believe any particular way, nor to follow any particular dogmas. We are a covenantal faith, not creedal. There are principles to which the majority of the faith ascribe, but they are hardly set in stone; nor will a person be disfellowshipped for not buying one whole cloth.
As I lay in bed, meditating on this question, a word flashed into my mind, and would not leave me alone till I gave it all due consideration; that word is Ghosti. According to the Rev. Kirk Thomas, “ghosti is the Proto-Indo-European word which refers to the reciprocal relationships of hospitality. In fact, the English words “guest” and “host” both come from this root.”
This word is how the Druids of Ár nDraíocht Féin (a group of which I am a member) relate and interact with the Gods, Ancestors, and Spirits of the Place. I, in my act of worship, am obligated to be a good host; to provide what is required for my guests. What is required changes, as does my relationship with these powers; but in the same way that I am required to do for human type friends who are guests in my home and in my life. It is an obligation that is also a social contract of good relationship.
A friendship in which one party is always taking, and never offering anything in return, is a friendship that will most likely not last very long, and truthfully shouldn’t. We had a name for those type of friends as I was growing up; we called them, “Very Draining People”. If this type of relationship is not healthy between humans; how, in all of creation, could it be a healthy way to interact with the great whatever(s)?
My major obligation is to be in relationship; a relationship that is healthy for me and for my divine guests; as well as for other humans in fellowship with me.
Good morning Lynn — It’s 7:50 am in Virginia as I type this — at some point I’ve written about God as being our common humanity — what makes us want to be involved in more than just our own survival as one of the fittest. I think it’ll come up later in one of my question essays, but as someone who was raised a Pagan and a Unitarian (in the middle of the southern Bible belt) I just wanted to say that in response to your post. There is something, isn’t there, that allows us to operate as Do Right people. (You old enough to catch an Aretha Franklin reference?) It is that Something I call God, the great Whatever. And, for me, becoming a person of faith means giving that Something the recognition it deserves. Your post made me want to mention this now, even though I plan to officially write about it later in the conversation.
Giving recognition where it is due, and as it deserves, seems to be a fundamental part of society as a whole, and I think is extremely important in faith matters; so, yes, resonates with my experience in perfect pitch. Faiths of various strips seem to be a great deal about right relationships. The Christian comes to right relationship with the divine by the mitigation of sin. The Muslim does so by submission to various acts of faith. Although some forms of Buddhism have no divine, it also brings the practitioner into right relationship with the reality of suffering. In the end it seems to me that relationship between fellow humans and the great whatever is the great question to be answered by all faiths, and seems to be the question that we struggle with as a common humanity.
As I’ve mentioned on this website, I’ve been in substance abuse recovery for a long time, and so have rubbed elbows with lots of people who need help. I’ve decided that all I can do is offer to help, but my offer is worthless unless the other person really wants to recover. Sadly, I think an awful lot of draining people (as opposed to people in crisis) have come to define themselves by their dysfunction, and want to present themselves to the world as a person whose life is a mess. When we decide to enable this way of thinking by always
“being there” we’re actually not helping.
The obligation of Faith is that it brings me peace throughout my travels from one end of this life to the other.
I have faith that I was forgiven prior to the journey, and that all will be forgiven at journeys end.
Faiths obligation is to give me the peace and focus to move through this life without acting on the judgements that I will innevitably make.
This kind of faith is certainly peace-giving, but how did you arrive at it? Since you are taking part in this dialogue site, it seems to me you might still be searching? If not, then share with us some of the experiences that undergird your convictions..
I don’t think I can maintain being faithful without being true to my faith. I am obliged to truthfulness. Otherwise my faith looses it’s meaning and it’s purpose to me. The strength I can experience through my faith demands an absolute conviction, a trust that I commit to without any reservations. My faith obliges me to be committed to it.
I don’t know that the question of obligations comes into the idea of faith, per se. Faith is an intensely private and personal thing, it is something that occurs or is chosen strictly on the individual level. It is not something you do or experience or have as part of a group. You may have faith, and I may have faith, but there is no way that you and I can have a shared faith. Faith is strictly experiential in nature, and the experience of no two human beings is identical, or, I would suspect, even remotely similar.
Where I would argue that the question of obligations does enters into faith is in the area of expression or description of those experiences of the spirit which lead to faith. It is difficult to say just why this is so, but the moment that faith truly arrives in someone, it also seems to bring along a traveling companion, integrity of expression.There is something in me that would never allow a misrepresentation of those experiences of my spirit that have led to faith, and I find this to be very general in those in whom I perceive faith to have truly taken up residence. Words, spoken or written, may be very poor tools in describing what faith is, or how it came about in any individual, but there seems to be an innate, faith-born obligation to use these tools in a completely honest fashion, regardless of the skills of the craftsman.
Michael, Your words seem to be an answer to Jim’s … and to my reply to him.
These interchanges are helpful in opening up our own minds to what world-view we are beginning with (a priori?) and so few of us are even aware that we have inevitably begun to build whatever we call faith on this sometimes uncharted ground.
We often hear someone say (or we have said it ourselves) What would I be like if I’d been born a Hindu, or even worse in today’s world, a Muslim?
My faith is in evolution. We are all on the same path to enlightenment, but some are farther ahead on it. What is our obligation then, to FAITH? To me, it is to live in such a way that people of any persuasion will be able to say, this place is better because she lived here. I even pick up scattered waste paper in every restroom I visit. No one will even know I did it. But it strengthens my resolve to make each place better because I was there.
Godless societies generally produce ungodly individuals, hence individual faith should produce a godliness in people that’s expression is not only visible to others but appreciated by others.
I don’t see any.
to become absolutely one with the Creator.
Obligations of faith ??? Faith in what? Are we still talking from a world-view of Christianity? Or even of a world-view of a God of any sort who tends the world and its fate?
My faith is in human nature in whatever stage of evolution we find ourselves at present. It’s a very low state, to be sure, and we have an obligation, therefore, to try to move more quickly along that path, living in love. Now, it is true, that for my particular spot in life, I am using Jesus as my example of how that love works itself into every single moment of a person’s life. And, the fact that it might lead to one’s early death must be taken into account.
But, the fact that he also cautioned us not to raise arms least we be killed by the sword ourselves, I am a pacifist.
Enough already. I’ll go on to Question 3 now.
Faith and religion are words that are used interchangeably, just as God and Christ; however, they do not mean the same thing. Religion is an outward expression that signifies faith in God in an organized fashion; but faith in God is individual and very personal assurance of a power, force, or being much greater than one’s self which is unknown, unknowable, yet mighty, powerful and influentia,l to whom which or what we assign the reason for our earth, the Sun and Moon, the planets, the universe and all heavenly bodies as well as all life known and unknown. We acknowledge this in the Christian religion in the Nicene Creed when we speak of God as the maker of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible. In my view, it is also acknowledged in the words of John that; In my Father’s house (which is this universe and any others that might exist), there are many mansions (suns, moons, stars, planets and other heavenly bodies)–my individual interpretation.
Even before I joined the Jaycees organization, whose Creed states, in the first line, that we believe: “Faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life”, I had decided that faith in the unknown and unknowable God was most important to my life. As I observe the universe and even simple things as trees that grow and bear fruit and birds that gather and fly in a formation to appear as one single large bird to dissuade attacks by hawks; as I observe the sunlight, the starlight and moonlight, and even the darkness as well as things like lightning and thunder and the effects if the tides of the oceans under the influence of the moon, I know, intellectually and with certainty that some sort of power and wisdom preceeded our earth and all life. I have asked, and continue to ask: “Could all of this have come from nothing?” This begs the other question: “Then what is nothing, if it produces all this?” I have concluded that “nothing” must be “something”–a force or forces; an Entity or Being– to have produced all this and more that we do not yet understand from which I deduce that: Whoever, whichever or whatever force produced (created) life and our world–THIS IS GOD TO ME!
My background is rooted in the Christian religion, so my early concept of God developed from Christian lessons and my conception of the principles in which I was being schooled; however, from an early age I developed doubts and confusion from the Biblical account of Genesis. I experienced difficulty concerning man’s sin of eating of the “forbidden fruit” from the tree that produced knowledge of good and evil, which was planted by the same God, who planted the tree before the existence of Adan and Eve, and eventually looked at the world afterwards and pronounced it to be “good”. To my simple mind, everything that happened in the Garden of Eden was part of the “Good” that God acknowledged. This line of thought and other thoughts that are discussed in more detail in my still unpublished book about God, the Christian religion and me, have provided me with a concept of God that many might have difficulty in accepting.
Later in life, while studying at a university, I came across a book (currently out of print, or because of a not totally effective search on my part) written by a Judge West, and titled: Judge West Speaks. Judge West expressed total faith in God and he expressed the view that if the world was considered “good” by God after the seven biblical days, then it must still be “good” now. He offered the view that we consider “good” as light, and “evil” as darkness. Then he pointed out that whenever we come across a shadow (darkness), we are assured of one thing–there must be a light somewhere, but something has come between us and the light. He then advised that it was our duty, when this happens, to seek oit the source of light that was being blocked out from view. This thinking has now become a permanent part of my philosophy of life.
Today, I am convinced that all things work together for “good” in the end. However, mankind’s problem is that we expect to experience, or have knowledge of that “good” during our brief life spans of 75 to 100 years or so in a world that is 5 billion years old in a universe that is 15 billion years young.
In the lyrics of the chorus of a song from my unpublished work, which is titled: As God wills it to be”, I write:
“Whoever, or which Presence Created life, this is God to me
Whatever love may be, whatever love is, this is God to me
I see stars in the sky, I hear an infant’s cry, this–isGod–to me
The sun will always rise, day will follow night, AS GOD WILLS IT TO BE.
The issue that arises for me with this question is…”who” is obligated? It seems to imply a separation of myself from the Ground which my faith, intuition and some experience tell me is not there, even as my cultural conditioning and everyday experiences insist is there. My obligation, then, would seem to be to open to that which I truly am.
Unfortunately, I don’t get to control that. Whatever active steps I take to produce a desired result, the more I insert my big foot into the process. “Seek ye first the Kingdom…” strikes me as the appropriate wisdom for this issue, but seeking in a way that does not possess the process is a fine art that eludes me. Be available. Anything more is probably too much.
For me, faith begins with an internal spiritual experience. That is, I will have a surprise awareness of something that is very close and yet expansive at the same time – intimate and infinite, you might say. It’s an ongoing thing. My faith is always beginning. I could ignore these things or rationalize them away. Or I can explore them. When Moses came to a bush that was simultaneously burning and not burning, he was curious. So, the first obligation of faith is to be curious. What is this thing?
The next obligation is to be open to the experience and begin to develop trust in it. The mind can play tricks. Ask a lot of questions. Angels in biblical stories sometimes surprise people. Invariably, the first thing the angel says is: Don’t be afraid. For me, these stories are metaphorical descriptions of the process of opening to Spirit. The obligation to be open and unafraid can be difficult. It can be weird or uncomfortable or threatening or it can be so subtle that it’s easily dismissed. But the real thing is persistent and if attention is paid, it will grow stronger and more focused. The beginning of faith is always an invitation to relationship with God or the Great Whatever or the ground of being – however it’s defined and to whatever extent a person can delve into it. For a Christian, of course, this invitation comes through a human-shaped hole at the edge of our finite perception of the universe into the limitlessness of God.
The experience is internal and also intimate. To be open and trusting in a relationship is the beginning of love. This is the hallmark of faith. A person of faith is a person in (literally, within) love. Love is not static. We want to be loved. We want to feel love. We want to love. Love is also not entirely internal. It is what acts between us, attracting us, asking for our openness and trust. It’s something we can share. Love is simultaneously infinite and intimate, personal and inter-personal.
This transparency to God and others is simultaneously humbling and empowering. Tapping into the Great Whatever leads us to be greater. This does not necessarily mean more powerful or successful. It means we become more genuine, more of who we can be. The deeper this relationship can be cultivated the more a person’s unique abilities and talents are built up, for example. If those talents and abilities are not expressed or stifled, life tends to become less than satisfying. What good are talents and abilities if kept in a box on a shelf? When a person is doing what he loves, especially with or for others, when he’s playing to his strengths with all his ability, he’s often in a very satisfying place. He is being who he is meant to be. I think we find our highest joy in expressing our deepest gifts.
Faith’s obligations are internal and external, intimate and infinite. Imperfect and broken as we may be, by attending to faith’s obligations, we become conduits for Spirit. A person of faith is obliged to explore his spiritual curiosity and deepen his relationship with God and also reach out to others. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. For me, these are not commands that I must conform my life to but descriptions of how things work. Bottom line: faith’s obligations are entirely practical.
the idea that jumped out at me was the one about shadows, and our asking where the light is….
I’m posting this from Bob who couldn’t get his e-mail to talk with the site:
Thanks. The following is a slightly edited version of the beginning of my chapter on “faith” in /Faith, Belief, and Religion/.
In faith…Bob Traer
Beliefs often concern obligations, but faith is not belief. Faith is trust. Being a trusting person, being faithful, is always an aspiration and at times due to inspiration, but is never an obligation.
Originally belief and faith had the same personal meaning. To believe, the verb form of the Old English belief, meant to hold dear or to love. Faith comes from the Old French word /fei/, which means being loyal to a person as in keeping faith or as in being faithful. In the fourteenth century, as faith was used to translate the Latin /fides/, it began to supplant belief in English usage. In the centuries that followed belief became associated with holding an idea or affirming a proposition, whereas faith retained the old meaning of being loyal. The translation of the Bible into English played an important role in this regard. The King James Authorized Version of 1611 translated as faith what in Latin was /fides/ and in the original Greek was /pistis/. English translations of the Bible do not use faith and belief as synonyms. The Bible is about faith, not belief.
The language of faith in the Bible has shaped the use and understanding of faith in the English language. This is true whether or not one believes in God or is a Christian. The Bible has been at the heart of theology and literature in the English-speaking world for more than four centuries. What faith means in English, and how we use the word today, is directly related to the way that faith is used in the Christian Bible.
Because “believe” can refer to either belief or faith, its use has complicated our understanding of faith in English. This is not a factor in New Testament Greek, because the noun for/ pistis/ has its own verb, /pisteuo/. Thus, in the Christian Bible in its original Greek language, one sees clearly in the written words themselves that believing (/pisteuo/) means faith (/pistis/). In the English translation, however, to “believe” might be taken to mean belief, because in English “believe” can refer to either faith or belief, depending on its context. We need to keep in mind that Christians reading the Bible in its original Greek saw clearly that the word translated into English as believe means faith.
In the New Testament faith is primarily about trusting another person, being loyal to that person, being faithful to that person. In this sense, therefore, the New Testament not only defines the use of faith in the English language, but also implies that a person is one in whom we may have faith. Having a belief about something or someone is not very important in the English Bible. The New Testament does not invite persons to affirm certain ideas about Jesus as the Christ, but to have faith.
The object of that faith is Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, in almost nine out of ten instances faith appears in the New Testament without any object at all. Examples from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible include: “your faith has made you well” (Mt. 9:22), “when he saw their faith” (Mk. 2:5), “will he find faith on earth?” (Lk. 18:8), “cleansed their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9), “the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith” (Rom. 1:17), “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1), and so forth. This faith may be weak or strong. Jesus is concerned because his disciples have “little faith” (Mt. 8:26, 14:31, 16:8, Lk. 12:28), yet he tells them that they only need faith the size of “a grain of mustard” (Mt. 17:20, Lk. 17:6).
This use of faith gives it a life independent of an object. Faith in the English Bible is not merely something that is defined by what one has faith in, but describes an orientation towards another person or toward life in general. Faith is a word like love and hope, so it should not be surprising that in his first letter to the church at Corinth Paul uses these three words to speak of the greatest spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 13:13). Faith is a virtue like courage and reverence and thus did not until recently have a plural. Faith is a way of being, a way of living. Faith is a personal quality, a matter of character, an entrusting of oneself, a way of embracing others and all creation. In the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus directs this faith to God. In his letters to the early churches, Paul directs this faith to God in Christ.
To use faith without an object reveals that by naming the object of faith we tend to separate ourselves from that object—to create a duality between the person who has faith and the object of that person’s faith. In the letters attributed to Paul, faith means a mystical union with Christ and not simply trusting in an object named Jesus Christ. Faith in the New Testament is about a way of being that overcomes the separation of subject and object. Faith is a way of being united with God in Christ, not simply a matter of believing that there is a God.
The Bible has given shape to the language of faith in English and has played a central role in the literature as well as the religious life of English-speaking cultures. In the Bible faith often stands alone to represent a way of being and living. It also, as a noun or a verb, often refers to a person, primarily God, or Jesus as the one manifesting God. When believe is used in the Bible we have to be careful not to confuse faith with belief, because the modern notion of belief as holding an opinion (which developed after the sixteenth century) is not in the Bible.
The distinction in English between faith and belief is confirmed by the adjective “faithful,” which expresses the character of faith and is used in the English Bible to translate a Hebrew word meaning fidelity. Faithfulness also appears frequently in the Old Testament of the Bible. There are, however, no parallel words associated with belief. There is no concept in the English language of belief-ful or of belief-fulness. Belief does not tell us anything about a person’s character, so it does not take the form of an adjective. Belief refers to having an idea or an opinion about something. In itself, having a belief is neither good nor bad. But having faith, being faithful, and faithfulness (like having the other spiritual gifts of hope and love, and being hopeful and loving) are essentially good.
Like any virtue, faith may be misdirected or blind. Nevertheless, even as we hope to be loving persons, we also hope to be faithful.
I must admit to having a very hard time answering this question at first. As a Pagan and Unitarian Universalist, I have a faith that requires nothing of me; not even a belief in the divine. I am not required to believe any particular way, nor to follow any particular dogmas. We are a covenantal faith, not creedal. There are principles to which the majority of the faith ascribe, but they are hardly set in stone; nor will a person be disfellowshipped for not buying one whole cloth.
As I lay in bed, meditating on this question, a word flashed into my mind, and would not leave me alone till I gave it all due consideration; that word is Ghosti. According to the Rev. Kirk Thomas, “ghosti is the Proto-Indo-European word which refers to the reciprocal relationships of hospitality. In fact, the English words “guest” and “host” both come from this root.”
This word is how the Druids of Ár nDraíocht Féin (a group of which I am a member) relate and interact with the Gods, Ancestors, and Spirits of the Place. I, in my act of worship, am obligated to be a good host; to provide what is required for my guests. What is required changes, as does my relationship with these powers; but in the same way that I am required to do for human type friends who are guests in my home and in my life. It is an obligation that is also a social contract of good relationship.
A friendship in which one party is always taking, and never offering anything in return, is a friendship that will most likely not last very long, and truthfully shouldn’t. We had a name for those type of friends as I was growing up; we called them, “Very Draining People”. If this type of relationship is not healthy between humans; how, in all of creation, could it be a healthy way to interact with the great whatever(s)?
My major obligation is to be in relationship; a relationship that is healthy for me and for my divine guests; as well as for other humans in fellowship with me.
Good morning Lynn — It’s 7:50 am in Virginia as I type this — at some point I’ve written about God as being our common humanity — what makes us want to be involved in more than just our own survival as one of the fittest. I think it’ll come up later in one of my question essays, but as someone who was raised a Pagan and a Unitarian (in the middle of the southern Bible belt) I just wanted to say that in response to your post. There is something, isn’t there, that allows us to operate as Do Right people. (You old enough to catch an Aretha Franklin reference?) It is that Something I call God, the great Whatever. And, for me, becoming a person of faith means giving that Something the recognition it deserves. Your post made me want to mention this now, even though I plan to officially write about it later in the conversation.
Does that resonate with your experience?
Love “Very Draining People.”
Giving recognition where it is due, and as it deserves, seems to be a fundamental part of society as a whole, and I think is extremely important in faith matters; so, yes, resonates with my experience in perfect pitch. Faiths of various strips seem to be a great deal about right relationships. The Christian comes to right relationship with the divine by the mitigation of sin. The Muslim does so by submission to various acts of faith. Although some forms of Buddhism have no divine, it also brings the practitioner into right relationship with the reality of suffering. In the end it seems to me that relationship between fellow humans and the great whatever is the great question to be answered by all faiths, and seems to be the question that we struggle with as a common humanity.
But what of our obligation to continue in a relationship with “draining” types in order to help them?
Carol — I’ve long wrestled with this.
As I’ve mentioned on this website, I’ve been in substance abuse recovery for a long time, and so have rubbed elbows with lots of people who need help. I’ve decided that all I can do is offer to help, but my offer is worthless unless the other person really wants to recover. Sadly, I think an awful lot of draining people (as opposed to people in crisis) have come to define themselves by their dysfunction, and want to present themselves to the world as a person whose life is a mess. When we decide to enable this way of thinking by always
“being there” we’re actually not helping.
That make any sense.
Thanks for all the posts. And Happy Fourth!
M
Will do! Next Sunday. And, of course, I participate. I want to feel part of a community of seekers. That make sense? M
The obligation of Faith is that it brings me peace throughout my travels from one end of this life to the other.
I have faith that I was forgiven prior to the journey, and that all will be forgiven at journeys end.
Faiths obligation is to give me the peace and focus to move through this life without acting on the judgements that I will innevitably make.
Jim,
This kind of faith is certainly peace-giving, but how did you arrive at it? Since you are taking part in this dialogue site, it seems to me you might still be searching? If not, then share with us some of the experiences that undergird your convictions..
Many thanks.
I don’t think I can maintain being faithful without being true to my faith. I am obliged to truthfulness. Otherwise my faith looses it’s meaning and it’s purpose to me. The strength I can experience through my faith demands an absolute conviction, a trust that I commit to without any reservations. My faith obliges me to be committed to it.
I don’t know that the question of obligations comes into the idea of faith, per se. Faith is an intensely private and personal thing, it is something that occurs or is chosen strictly on the individual level. It is not something you do or experience or have as part of a group. You may have faith, and I may have faith, but there is no way that you and I can have a shared faith. Faith is strictly experiential in nature, and the experience of no two human beings is identical, or, I would suspect, even remotely similar.
Where I would argue that the question of obligations does enters into faith is in the area of expression or description of those experiences of the spirit which lead to faith. It is difficult to say just why this is so, but the moment that faith truly arrives in someone, it also seems to bring along a traveling companion, integrity of expression.There is something in me that would never allow a misrepresentation of those experiences of my spirit that have led to faith, and I find this to be very general in those in whom I perceive faith to have truly taken up residence. Words, spoken or written, may be very poor tools in describing what faith is, or how it came about in any individual, but there seems to be an innate, faith-born obligation to use these tools in a completely honest fashion, regardless of the skills of the craftsman.
Michael, Your words seem to be an answer to Jim’s … and to my reply to him.
These interchanges are helpful in opening up our own minds to what world-view we are beginning with (a priori?) and so few of us are even aware that we have inevitably begun to build whatever we call faith on this sometimes uncharted ground.
We often hear someone say (or we have said it ourselves) What would I be like if I’d been born a Hindu, or even worse in today’s world, a Muslim?
My faith is in evolution. We are all on the same path to enlightenment, but some are farther ahead on it. What is our obligation then, to FAITH? To me, it is to live in such a way that people of any persuasion will be able to say, this place is better because she lived here. I even pick up scattered waste paper in every restroom I visit. No one will even know I did it. But it strengthens my resolve to make each place better because I was there.