Monthly archive: October, 2004

Recently the pastors at my church used an illustration about faith, and the illustration is familiar to many people, Christian or non-Christian. And I’ve heard it before, even used it myself to make a point. But something has always made me feel uneasy about the illustration, and I think I’ve figured out what that is, and I’d like to offer a better illustration, something that could work as a more complete illustration.

Illustration: There is a chair in front of you; you believe the chair is stable, supportive, and will do everything it is intended to do. But until you sit in the chair, your “belief” is worthless.

Now, this illustration makes an incredible point: belief/assent without action is not real, saving faith. However, while the illustration serves the point, what is missing is faith in action. A chair does not move, is not dynamic, has no road on which to move. There is no “result” in a chair, other than not falling on your back side. It sustains and supports, both of which are important aspects of faith.

But I think the illustration could and must go further. I don’t believe that faith is about a stable focal position, represented in the chair illustration by “sitting down.” While a certain position is necessary in faith, a direction is also equally, if not more, important.

New illustration: There is a bicycle in front of you. You say that the bicycle can hold you up, it can move forward, it can get you places. You say you believe that the bicycle will do what it has been made to do. Yet until you get on the bike and ride it, your belief in that bicycle is not real, saving faith.

I believe that a fundamental part of faith is that it is active, dynamic, moving forward. In particular, the moving forward of the faith of the Church. The chair illustration cannot bring out those elements of faith. Just getting on the bicycle seat is not enough to claim “real, saving faith.” A moving-forward, progressing-in-practice faith is necessary to effect salvation. Anything less is just a moment-in-time event, a “faith action” that doesn’t produce, provide, or persevere.

The Chair illustration says, I’m standing (or sitting) firmly. The Bike illustration says, I’m moving forward confidently. The Chair says, I support those who trust in me. The Bike says, I mobilize and stabilize those who trust in me. The Chair says, Trusting in me proves your faith is real. The Bike says, Trusting in me proves your faith is active. Do you see how it goes further?

I suppose one could argue that the “action” in the Chair illustration is the actual sitting in the chair, rather than the chair itself in action. And I think the point is valid. But the real issue I’m trying to point out is that one does not “get on” a faith that is static and immobile, but one that is moving forward (more realistically with a crowd of cyclists), gaining momentum (hopefully), and going somewhere. In short, I think the Bike illustration works better and can serve more illustrative purposes. But like all illustrations, taken too far they don’t work.

Scriptural support? Read James, I guess. That’s about all I can say. I’m sure I’ll get flack about this, but that’s okay, cuz it’s probably not complete, and flack will help my direction become more complete and stable (see how I avoid any notion of “position” and things “static”? There’s a reason for this!)

Doug

Doug Stuart is a committed follower of Jesus and passionate about building for the Kingdom of God through education and mobilization. He is a regular writer at LibertarianChristians.com as well as the founder of Living Loud.

Website - More Posts

Douglas Adams has always used philosophical and logical comedy in his writings. I’ve been listening to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy on my iPod, and I’m becoming more and more convinced of the postmodern ethos that characterizes his thought.

“I’ve gone off the idea of progress. It’s overrated.”

If there were ever a post-Enlightenment statement, “the path of progress” is an obvious representation of that philosophy. Arthur Dent claims it’s overrated, which is exactly the kind of thought a postmodern would likely have.

“This bypass has got to be built, and it is going to be built…there aren’t any alternatives.”

The inevitable progression of mankind was the modern philosophy. “We’re evolving, we’ve gained a lot of knowledge, we’re working on the experiments to produce more knowledge, and there’s no way of stopping it.”

What to make of it?

I think Arthur Dent’s comments reflect an honest re-thinking of what the human’s drive has done to him. Environmentalists feel this when it comes to building highways all over the place. Considering the alternative is another way of saying, “It may not necessarily be so…” But if you were to listen further in the program, Arthur offers no alternative. The conversation goes nowhere. Here is how Adams represents the postmodern “alternative”–which is virtually nonexistant. To be sure, progress isn’t necessarily the wrong direction. But a realization that the “old” choice may not be the best choice is on the table.

Here is where we are. Postmodernism doesn’t offer alternatives to every modern concept. It offers suggestions to the old, ingrained way of doing things. It offers a humble act of reflection every thinking person should engage in.

While I am just beginning to realize how contemplative a person I am, that realization has helped to further my contemplation of Scripture, tradition, dialogue, and other experiences that I have. I’m quickly becoming thoughtful of nearly every action that I take, and if you have known me for very long, that is a big change for me, but a necessary one.

Doug

Doug Stuart is a committed follower of Jesus and passionate about building for the Kingdom of God through education and mobilization. He is a regular writer at LibertarianChristians.com as well as the founder of Living Loud.

Website - More Posts