Although I’ve already highlighted in previous posts some of the key features of the view I once held when it comes to the nature of faith, in this post I’d like to unpack things a bit more, giving particular attention to a few things I came to discover about its origins. Discoveries which helped me not only understand why it became so pervasive but also why I (like many others) ended up more or less absorbing it growing up. As I’ve indicated previously, perhaps the best term to characterize this view of faith is the word “belief,” where “belief” is understood as giving one’s mental assent to the truth of a given set of statements or propositions (an understanding of the word “belief” that is itself also quite modern in origin – although that’s another story for another day). In any case, it is this propositional understanding of faith and belief that I once held and later struggled with, an understanding of faith that (although quite dominant today) has a rather interesting history as I came to find out. Perhaps surprisingly to some, and as I have briefly touched on already, this understanding of faith that so often emphasizes “believing the right things” isn’t something that goes back to the beginning of the Christian faith so much as it is a product of the last few hundred years. Put differently, although Christians have no doubt always committed themselves to a certain way – or better yet various ways (plural) – of approaching reality since the earliest of times (whether having to do with the nature of God, the person of Jesus, the authority of the Bible, or the purpose of the Christian life, etc.), the emphasis upon such a commitment being primarily constituted by what one “believes” (in the propositional sense of the term mentioned above) turns out to be a much more recent phenomenon. A phenomenon which I discovered owes its origin primarily to two major and (relatively) recent historical developments in the history of the Christian faith.

The first major historical development that would eventually lead to such an understanding of faith, as I came to learn, was the Protestant Reformation (~500 years ago). Although a historical event that is no doubt well known for its emphasis on faith (simply google the term sola fide if this doesn’t ring a bell), it is perhaps equally well known for the number of new denominations it inevitably created – denominations which in large part defined themselves in terms of what they “believed.” Specifically, how what they “believed” differed from what other denominations “believed.” Typically expressed by having distinct doctrines or confessions (often quite nuanced and elaborate), what ultimately served to distinguish one denomination from another was the unique set of statements affirmed by each – Presbyterians believed x, Lutherans believed y, Baptists believed z, etc., with Roman Catholics more or less following suit in a sort of “pox on all your houses” attitude towards Protestantism as a whole. The important result of this development was that faith inevitably became understood primarily as “believing the right things,” of having the “right” beliefs instead of the “wrong” beliefs, or (perhaps more pertinently) being part of the “right” denomination or branch of Christianity instead of the “wrong” one. Indeed, and as I also learned, this ultimately led to a shift in how Christians came to understand what it meant to be “orthodox.”

To overly generalize the matter (as with most everything on my blog for the sake of space), prior to the Reformation, as I learned, to be orthodox meant primarily to practice “right” or “correct” worship. That is, if one performed the liturgy “right,” for example, then one was “orthodox.” After the Reformation, however, to be orthodox eventually came to be primarily understood in terms of (you guessed it) having the “right” or “correct” beliefs. And lest one think that this was all just theoretical in nature, it may be worth pointing out that such an emphasis on being “orthodox” in this way was far from theoretical. So far, in fact, that it ultimately lead to the persecution and deaths of many Christians at the time whose beliefs were deemed to be “heretical” (often members of one denomination being killed by members of another, and vice versa). Nothing all that new in certain respects (many of the ancient creeds played a similarly unfortunate function in expelling “heretics” – as many Arian Christians likely knew/know all too well). But all because, at bottom, different Christians happened to have different theological perspectives. Let that sink in for a minute. Christians literally killed other Christians (or at least other self-described “Christians” – in their eyes) simply because they believed different things to be true (talk about the thought-police!). In any case, the key discovery for me in all of this was how the Protestant Reformation played a major role in shifting both the understanding of what it meant to have faith as well as what it meant to be orthodox. The meaning of both shifting towards seeing the common notion of “right belief” as being central – yet a meaning and an emphasis that seems to be very much different in character than the various ways faith had been understood by Christians for virtually fifteen-hundred years prior. Of course, it is true that modern translations of the Bible and the ancient creeds do frequently use the term “believe”, however it’s important to note that the original meaning of the word differs quite significantly from the meaning often implied today. To put it sharply, “belief” originally had more to do with “giving one’s heart to” the subject described by a given set of statements than “mentally assenting to” the literal factuality of the statements themselves. Indeed, one may be surprised to learn (as I was) that the English word “believe” originally meant – not “to think true” or “to mentally assent” – but rather “to hold dear” or “to love” (as its German relative belieben still does today). But, again, that’s another story for another day.

All that being said, however, the Reformation wasn’t the only major development that led to such a “belief centered” emphasis in understanding the nature of faith. The other major historical development I learned about that seems to have had just as much of an impact (if not moreso) on how the nature of faith came to be understood was an event I’ve touched on briefly already – namely, the Enlightenment (~400 years ago). Coming off the heels of the Protestant Reformation (and by no accident), the Enlightenment had an absolutely massive impact on shaping both Christianity and Western culture as a whole. Although the Enlightenment impacted a wide variety of areas, perhaps the two most important areas given our current topic was the way in which it identified truth with factuality (something I’ve also touched on previously), as well as the way in which it called into question the factuality of the Bible along with many Christian teachings – which, when put together, tended to call into question the truth of both. Thus, whereas the Reformation began to frame “faith” in terms of “belief,” the Enlightenment picked up that baton, so to speak, and carried it forward while simultaneously beginning to frame “truth” in terms of “fact” (where a fact is something that can be verified through historical and/or scientific investigation). The end result was that faith became understood primarily in terms of mentally assenting to a list of verifiable “facts.” A veritable one-two punch to the ways in which faith had been previously understood (ways which, although I will get to later, did not seem to emphasize – let alone equate – “faith” with “belief” or “truth” with “fact”).

As one can imagine, the effect of each of these (Reformation: faith = belief; Enlightenment: truth = fact) on the nature of faith has been monumental. Perhaps relatable for some, the effects of each of these led many people to see faith as no longer primarily about committing one’s life to following Jesus, or loving God and neighbor, or pursuing the Kingdom of God, etc. Rather, faith eventually came to be understood as being primarily about believing certain things to be true – where “certain things” quickly came to be seen as “questionable things.” When faith is understood as believing certain things to be true, when believing is understood primarily in terms of mentally assenting to a set of propositions, when truth is limited to verifiable facts, and when many supposedly verifiable facts deemed essential to Christianity have been thrown under the bus of Enlightenment skepticism, the only thing left for a Christian who seeks to have faith is to mentally assent to a list of supposedly verifiable facts which have largely been cast into doubt. Indeed, it is at this point in time that the idea of faith as “believing what you know ain’t so” first began to take root (to borrow a later line from Mark Twain) – a notion of faith largely ridiculed (and in many cases rightfully so) by many of the so called “New Atheists” today. Not coincidentally, however, it also served in many respects as the ideological root for the recent rise of contemporary apologetics (where apologetics is a branch of theology typically devoted to defending the essential truths – read facts – of the Christian life and worldview). The rise of contemporary apologetics being a closely linked phenomenon to our subject and of which I am a passionate proponent, to say the least (albeit for reasons likely different than many), and a phenomenon which I will continue to explore in relation to the nature of faith in my next post.

Until then, thanks again for reading and – as always – stay curious, seek truth, and love well.

Cheers,