Register   Lost password?   

Faith, Belief and Meaning in the Twenty First Century

The definition, connotation and usage of the terms faith, belief and believe have changed since the middle ages, the period in which our modern language Bible translations have their beginning. Not only has our use of these terms changed, the idea of faith as an unnecessary part of human meaning is also relatively new. Furthermore, the acceptance of Secular Humanism as a non-faith belief-system has affected not only that belief-system but many others as well.

This post is the first in a series that I hope will spark a discussion of how the changes in the meanings of these important terms, and the failure of modern religions to provide meaning to peoples lives, has left us foundering in our faith while we fight over beliefs.

The definitions below tell of the beginnings of two terms that are very important to faith, religion and humanity's search for meaning.

Belief: . . .from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed [15th century]. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in [14th century]. translations, and belief had by [16th century]. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (c.1225).Online Etymology Dictionary

Faith; c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.[Online Etymology Dictionary

When the Protestant Bibles were being translated, believe, the verb form, was a term that meant to act upon one's belief. Belief, the noun form, meant loyalty and trust, typically in God or a leader to whom one owed allegiance. In fact, the root words leig (or lege) which is one to whom I am indebted or sworn to serve, liev (or leve) which means to highly regard or esteem, and love are related as you can see by their similar spelling. Believe and belove are consequently related. That is, believe and belief had nothing to do with assenting to fact or holding a statement to be true, but are related to the terms beloved and allegiance. These terms assumed that the object to which they were applied was existent and fact. And they originally applied to a person or personality and not a fact or system.

Faith, as a replacement for belief was not used before the 13th century. From that time, faith came into increasing use while belief was freed to change its meaning. Faith comes to us from French which comes from the Latin Fides or trust. Belief came to mean an accepted system or theology, as in Christianity, while believe became the act of accepting propositional truth. Therefore, when the term belief is used in the place of faith, for which it had originally been equivalent, the original meaning of both are corrupted to mean belief in the unbelievable rather than trust in someone (not originally in something) in whom I have great trust and whom I hold in high regard.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith suggests that believe/belief should be dropped from biblical translations because the meaning has transitioned from one that correctly portrayed the language of the original in the 12th and 13th centuries to one that completely distorts the language and meaning. Faith, on the other hand still remains close to its original meaning and the original meaning of belief, the term that it often replaces.

The modern world has to rediscover what “faith” means, and then to begin to talk about that; it must recover the verb, to rediscover what it means to have faith, to be faithful, to care, to trust, to cherish, to be loyal, to commit oneself: to rediscover what “believe” used to mean.

 

[The larger task] for coming generations: the rediscovery of living one's life, corporate and individual, in awareness of, quiet confidence in, pledged allegiance to, ardent love of, the transcendent reality in the participation in which the meaning of human life consists. (Smith, 1979, p117)

Still wonder why all of this etymology is important? Well, the first reason that the original meaning of these terms is important to know and understand is that we are getting a consistently wrong understanding of important scripture. For example, consider the following scripture.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

The current, modern understanding says that those who accept the proposition that Jesus not only existed in bodily form but is also the Son of God (a concept that I wager most of us misunderstand, anyway) will receive eternal life (another concept that we don't understand). However, the more correct reading, and one that would have been considered correct during the Reformation would look more like this.

Bill's rewrite of John 3:16-18

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever trusts and commits her or his life to him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever trusts and promises to dutifully obey him is not condemned, but whoever does not trust and obey is condemned already, because he has not been true to the name of the only Son of God.

Does this make more sense than the modern notion that merely agreeing with a propositional truth will transform the signer-on into that willed by God? The next time the propositional truth argument walks boldly into a discussion about faith and belief, remember that there is more to following than saluting a proposition.

Book of James

It was always puzzling to me to read the book of James in lieu of the modern understanding of belief. James says that even the demons belive and tremble (thus seemingly contradicting John's accentuation of belief). Our heritage as you know took this verse and others like it and turned salvation into puritanical legalism.

Using your definition of the term, what John is talking about is quite different than what James is talking about. James is using the modern usage of belief and criticizing the results of it, while John is refering to trust and loyalty strongly emphasizing its imperativeness. This view of Scripture IMHO, allows us to have broad opinions about Jesus' and God's nature while staying faithful to the message much like the early Christians did. What a different faith that is than the one we see before us today. Harder to control and more beneficial to the soul.

Brian

Harder to control than puritanical legalism

Great point! I have seen variations of this so many times on this site, control and power and theological enforcement gets us into trouble. Judgmentalism starts us down that path. Leaders with good intentions want to save us from ourselves.

Just like Rene's son, we all have to make our own decisions, and we are all going to mess up, often really mess things up. But IMHO, if we can be right 80% of the time, we are doing great!

If we were meant to be strictly controlled and legally bound, we would be by God's perfect rule. We are offered a choice, our acceptance of which will be as imperfect as we all are, and Lord knows that is hard to control.

Universal Faith

Brian,
Comparing James 2 makes a good point. As far as I can tell, since I don't know Greek, the word usage in both James and John is similar. That is, the noun form is faith or belief and the verb for is believe. From this, it seems that James is going further to say that if demons believe and tremble, which includes not only acknowledging the existence of God but also giving due respect, they fall short because their believing produces nothing of consequence.

blg2319 wrote:
This view of Scripture IMHO, allows us to have broad opinions about Jesus' and God's nature while staying faithful to the message much like the early Christians did. What a different faith that is than the one we see before us today. Harder to control and more beneficial to the soul.

WC Smith goes on to say something similar. In fact, it might be one thesis of the book that beliefs are far less important than the faith developed in one's life. In the concluding chapter he calls for a more global perspective on faith that allows for different traditions while promoting faith development above mere propositional truth.

bill

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.