Skip to main content

What faith is not...

When I was younger, for example, in my teenage years in fundamentalist churches, I used to regularly hear some bad analogies for faith, especially in evangelistic or apologetic contexts. I heard faith being compared to sitting in a chair [“your belief in the chair’s ability to hold you does no good unless you sit in it”] or getting on a plane [“your belief in the plane’s ability to take off safely or transport you won’t work until you decide to board it”]. Now I cringe whenever I hear salvation compared sitting on a chair, or getting on a plane. Thankfully, my church here doesn’t use such analogies that trivialize faith and salvation.

Such analogies are cheesy, simplistic illustrations of salvation. They reduce faith to something trite, like a mundane decision, a mere intellectual act, little different than choosing to vote for a certain party, or choosing what shoes to wear in the morning. And they’re rather human-focused rather than God-focused. (They sound rather Arminian, in fact.) I mean, it’s a life-changing event, for crying out loud. It’s complete surrender, a surrender to Gods’ will and the lordship of Christ, a commitment to being a disciple of Christ, giving your life to him, being reborn. And the rebirth is a great work of God, a miraculous event, not something wimpy like parking your butt on a sofa. It’s all about what he does, not what you do. It’s not like choosing to sit in a chair. It’s choosing to live or die. How about that for a gospel illustration? It is a choice between life and death. Real life, eternal life, a new life. Or a forever-existing sort of death, like being a zombie basically, only worse. Please... use a zombie movie for a gospel illustration, or something realistic, not a chair. Or choosing to jump off a building, or jumping into a tar pit, versus choosing a brand new life from the only one who you can trust and follow. That's a lot more like what faith is.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mystical & charismatic Christianity

As a person with charismatic leanings, I have come to prefer Catholic / Anglican / Episcopal forms of charismatic Christianity. As mentioned in my last post, charismatic Catholicism goes way back to the early church, under the rubric of Christian mysticism. The reason I prefer these forms is because they are more balanced. Protestant charismatics and Pentecostals greatly overemphasize things like speaking in tongues, which are really a minor gift. Tongues have been practiced throughout church history, and there is no historical or scriptural basis for the claim that tongues and other charismatic gifts ever ceased*. But they have never been considered "a big deal" or in any way a sign that a person is more spiritual than another who doesn't do tongues or such gifts. Only with the advent of modern charismatic movements did such an extreme emphasis get put on tongues and charismatic gifts. St. Paul commanded us to desire the better gifts - in that context, he was referring t...

Evangelicalism's gradual demise

The term "evangelical" was popularized by Martin Luther ("evangelisch" in German), which meant a follower of the gospel. The term was originally a very good and useful term, as it referred to someone who believed in a religion based on faith and following the teachings of Christ, rather than man-made religious rules. It was meaningful enough but also broad enough to encompass a general theological orientation and religious lifestyle. It could include and accommodate somewhat different views or interpretations of Christian belief, including those who focused more on the grace, spirituality and lifestyle of Christ. As such, it was not the exclusive property of one religious group or theological orientation. The meaning has been generally positive in modern church history. However, in recent decades the term has been hijacked by fundamentalists who insist on a narrow interpretation of the term, insisting on a set of specific theological beliefs, while ignoring the C...

Apologetics site

A good scriptural apologetics site I found recently is www.christian-thinktank.com , which provides explanations for difficult biblical passages and issues. I can't vouch for everything yet, but one article I liked gives a good explanation for the ordered attacks and killings of Canaanites and Amalekites in the Old Testament, and similar OT controversies.