Credo
by Jonathan
As I alluded to in the previous post, I will post a basic ‘statement of belief’. This will inherently be over-simplified and brief to a fault; for that reason, rather than a summa or full-fledged creed I might prefer to consider this as a trajectory or framework for thought. Please excuse the length, I promise they won’t all be this long. So, here goes:
Statements of belief traditionally begin with “I” (as in “I believe”). This should be considered more a convention than a foundation. There is not cause to begin with the self as if the self is the center or foundation of knowledge and truth. One begins with “I” for a number of reasons that are less than epistemological. The “I” signifies that belief is a speech-act of which I am the embodiment. So, we’ve hinted at the concept “believe”. To say “I believe” is to do something as much as it is to say something. For this reason, little more can be said about belief without the object of belief. Belief designates the form of life and cognitive functions belong to the object. In this sense, one believes from within a context and tradition and into a reality and lifestyle.
The context and tradition within which I locate myself and my believing is the Wesleyan Christian tradition. This tradition places emphasis on four “authorities”: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, Reason. I want to briefly consider the relationship of these “authorities”. Scripture, Christians generally maintain, is the original authority. Historically, via historical-critical method, we understand that there would be no “Scripture” without “tradition”. Already then, we recognize that Scripture and Tradition are intimate allies in authority. In my understanding of the function of Scripture as authority, Scripture could perhaps be characterized as a family of language-games.
Excursus: “Language-games”, in the Wittgensteinian sense, are self-sufficient language systems which have rules for use (grammar), practical aims (telos/teloi), and forms of life (narratives). This, Scripture as a family of language-games, means that Scripture has arisen out of the interaction of God and Israel/Church. The Scriptures have the function of identifying the divine and human interlocutors and establishing the grammar, telos, and forms of life of these interactions.
Because God is identified by and in the Scripture, we see that tradition is not the only contributor to the canon of Scripture; God is an active agent. In light of this, experiences of God should continue among the post-biblical community: we who are formed by the grammar of the Scripture also experience God in those terms. Thus, Experience is an “authority”. Reason, on the other hand, is somewhat a misfit because it cannot be easily located as an agent of authority, but we can recognize that the conclusions of tradition, experience, and Scripture should be confronted if they prove unreasonable or irrational. Consequently, Reason does function authoritatively in the life of the Church and the Christian. So, I believe from within the Wesleyan Christian tradition and into God.
If Scripture presents the grammar and forms of life inherent in the language-game that develops between God and man, then the form of belief is not merely concerned with information (about God and man) but with forms of life and faithfulness to the reality of God. Therefore, I believe in God. This statement of belief requires faithfulness for it to be truthful (thus, the believer’s life and world should be shaped by the God witnessed to in Scripture). So, I believe in one God. The tradition has interpreted from Scripture that the affirmation of the one God (and the experience of interaction with God) includes the three personae of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Karl Barth’s words: “God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself through Himself. He reveals Himself.” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.1) In my supplementary words, this says not only that man finds his existence in God (Father/Creator) and his future in God (Spirit), but that we can live our present life with God through Christ.
Therefore, I believe in one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Future posts could be considered “experiments” in this creedal statement.
_____________
* Picture found here.
MAKING A STATEMENT: A modern rendering of a Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Copyright James Matthew Farrow (1995)
Considering belief, I have recently been introduced to a general Johannian hermeneutic that I would like to submit for consideration. Generally speaking, whether intentionally or not, John’s Gospel moving through the epistles named for him, ring with an intensity of “belief” at the beginning (specifically in the non-believer addressed Gospel) and transition to an intensity of using the word “know” (particularly within the epistles addressed to a/the body of believers). This hermeneutic position makes a case for the process of growth in a believer to go from “believing” to “knowing.”
In this sense, belief certainly does denote action, but it is action based on trust, either in the message proclaimed or the proclaimer themselves. In the second sermon posted below, belief is characterized as the “spark” that will light the “fire” of knowing (and love is the “kindling”).
Back to the issue, it would seem that for John, belief would be a precarious position in which a supposed disciple of Christ might live for the majority of their lives. Instead there is a sense that belief being enacted in love is designed to result in the undeniable knowledge of God and God’s Kingdom. It would seem that to have faith and knowledge of God, one must first believe and trust in God. To know the resurrection, one must first believe and trust in it; and so be crucified.
If this does not make sense, by all means, listen to the linked in sermons. He does a much better job than I at expressing this idea.
So, without further ado, I pose the question: Is it that we do not move beyond belief to know, or that all find themselves believing but few come to know, that we do not begin our Creeds with the conventional ego statement: “I know there is one God, who is Father, Son and Spirit?”
This idea comes from Shane Hipps’ preaching on both:
1Jn 2:18-25 – http://marshill.org/teaching/2011/06/19/1-john-2v18-25-%E2%80%93-beyond-belief/
and1Jn 3:19-24 – http://marshill.org/teaching/2011/07/24/1-john-3v19-24-knowing-is-the-flame/
Wonderful thoughts! When writing, I was not posing ‘belief’ against ‘knowing’ but my forethought aside, it is a very relevant question. I think this is a very interest and possibly meaningful paradigm for coming to certainty.
Just a few questions on schemes:
It seems reasonable to presume that belief comes first (this seems reasonable in any field of knowledge). The question becomes, what brings us from belief to knowledge? Is it that love is, as you said, the kindling and that this somehow means that love brings belief to knowledge? From an epistemological standpoint this is not extremely satisfying; it presents the believer as the confirmation of that believed, which without care could lead to a Feuerbachian projection of human ideals ‘onto the skies’.
Could we broaden the use of ‘hypothesis’ and combine it with belief? In that case, faith is the gracious gift of God (we’ll take this orthodox claim without exploring it too deeply) which manifests a belief in the One whom faith seeks. This faith seeking understanding presents itself as a claim awaiting verification. What form of verification would be expected to confirm belief as true knowledge? I like your sentence, “To know the resurrection, one must first believe and trust in it; and so be crucified.” Perhaps our own cruciform life could be our ‘proposition’ awaiting verification. This could leave us with an eschatological verification of which we have fragmentary verification on this side of the eschaton (in our cruciform life, God grants us resurrection-experiences now).
I know this probably isn’t exactly where you were taking the comment, but the process of going from belief to knowledge was the striking question to me – mostly because I so enjoyed your proposal!