CHAPTER 1 – “An Age of the Spirit”
Cox delineates between faith & belief and suggests that one can be a “practicing Christian, but not necessarily a believing one” (page 17). How do you feel about this delineation? What benefits or problems does Cox create by offering non-similar definitions of faith & belief?
CHAPTER 2 – “Einstein’s Snuffed-Out Candle”
Cox goes to great lengths to link faith to awe – through the mysteries of the universe, self, and others. Having crossed over the bridge of modernity into post-modernity, how has the modern mode of seeking objective truth hindered Christianity? Are there new or revived areas of faith that are embracing the mysterious?
When one understands Cox’s point, I think the delineation is brilliant. Many people ascribe to a set of beliefs that are not consistent with their practices. They declare who they are rather than allowing their lifestyle to declare who they are. Furthermore, this delineation removes Christians from a static state where there is no wrestling with faith issues. Instead, it admits that while they practice Biblical living, they are also on a journey of discovery – one that allows reflection, questioning, and discovery.
The benefit in the distinction between faith and belief is that identifies what/who is at the core of one’s life. With faith, Christ becomes the core entity around which someone lives – and from that core, establishes a belief system. With belief, many times, creeds or doctrinal statements become the core to one’s life and religious living replaces the relationship that God intended.
Jeff, I agree with your comment about the differentiation between faith and beliefs. I do, however, think that Cox veers into a pluralistic understanding of faith–this idea of picking and choosing beliefs– a “build-your-own-spirituality”, if you will.
Cox mentions that “church leaders and theologians wince at the vagueness of the term ‘spirituality’, which is burdened with a long history of ambiguity and controversy” (10). I must admit that I’m one of those wincers– and while I’m certainly willing to accept that some of Christian theology is non-essential- meaning, that there is much that likely would have no impact on our eternal destination (what hell is, creation theology, and…ahem…even the baptism of the HS), I do think that to call yourself a Christian, there needs to be a few minimum belief requirements. I mean, at what point is Christianity no longer Christianity? For example, can one claim to be a Christian if the virgin birth is denied?
Cox suggests, “Somehow I sensed instinctively that faith was something deeper than belief” (18). I’m just not so sure we can separate the two. I would suggest that faith is belief lived out– but if you have no concrete beliefs (even rejecting the notion of absolute truth) then where does faith lie? In your imagination?
Great thoughts Ben. I agree that there has to be a certain set of “beliefs” to be a Christian. Cox’s premise of the early church having faith in the person of Christ must not ignore that each person holds a belief system by which they are worth having faith in to some extent. Therefore, we definitely need to understand Christ’s beliefs so that we are truly having faith in who He is – not some watered down version we have created.
Hey Jeff- When I was reading the chapter, I couldn’t help but be reminded of an article I read at Christianity Today about “pop sensation” Katy Perry and her claims of faith. Interesting stuff, you may want to check it out. I think it just further exemplifies the danger of having faith without beliefs. And far it be it from me to judge, but as I read the article, I asked myself the same question as above…at what point is Christianity no longer Christianity?
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctentertainment/2010/08/katy-perry-im-still-a-christia.html