Faith vs The Faith

What does it mean to have faith?  I'd always assumed to have faith was to seek.  To seek answers; to seek truths; to seek a personal relationship with Christ.  Others say having faith is to believe.  Believing something to be true without any evidence.  I always hear from some of my friends and even from myself, "I wish I had more faith."  During my RCIA class, a priest was talking about this very subject.  He said that whenever a student goes up to him and says "I wish I had more faith" he just scoffs and says "as if it belonged to you in the first place!"

Hold up, what?!  He just flipped the whole concept of faith right back into my face!  Faith isn't mine. Faith is given to me.

Donum Dei

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" -Ephesians 2:8

"Donum Dei" means "a gift of God" in Latin.  It is better described as God's Grace. They are a given to us, despite having not deserved them.  They are also permanent.  Other graces described in the New Testament are Christ of course, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift of eternal life, the gift of love and the gift of personal talent.   These were given to us through no effort of our own, but because "God so loved the world".

We are also given the gift of faith.  The biggest problem is people need to learn to put a little more trust in God.  They always think "me,me, me, me, me" like its all on them.  This is more of my own opinion, but I think that is why people confuse faith vs the faith.

The Faith

The faith, to put it more bluntly, is religion.  For example, the purpose of apologetics is to learn about the Catholic faith.  Why we do the things we do.

One of the things I like about Catholicism (and Christianity in general) is that it is a religion based on faith and not of itself.  Any other religion you see is the opposite; that by doing certain acts more faith is obtained. Sadly, many Christians who do not understand this think that by following what their religion tells them, they will somehow gain more faith.  I think this is also why Protestants believe in their "faith alone" doctrine.

Getting More Faith

The priest that spoke to my class explained how faith works in an easy to understand manner.  He said that it is much like a bank.  When we run out of cash we go to the bank and get more right?  Well, if we are running low on faith we just need to ask for more.  

This didn't make much sense to me at first.  The reason it didn't make sense was because of our free will to accept this gift. If that were the case, someone who doesn't believe in God could say "give me faith" and most likely nothing would happen.  In that light, faith really is about believing.  That in some sort of way, faith really is on us. To say "I wish I had more faith" would then mean "I wish I believed a bit more."  How can you measure belief?  Is there some sort of empirical value that can add or subtract our belief?  That would be like trying to measure happiness; it just doesn't work.  I couldn't wrap my head around it until I deconstructed what the word "belief" means.

What we need to do is stop looking at God in a completely objective manner.  If I say "I believe in something" it would mean I have confidence it is true.  However, if I said "I believe in you" it would actually mean "I trust you."  Belief in God is trusting in Him.  Trust is to rely on someone.  To get more faith all that is needed is putting more trust in God.  Learn to stop thinking in "me's" and learn to start thinking in "Him's".

Why I Am

When I was younger I was so put off by Christianity I made my highly religious neighbor cry because I told her I was an Atheist.   I remember we were walking home from where our school bus dropped us off and while we were talking, I nonchalantly proclaimed to her that I didn't believe in God.  And she just started crying.

I was so put off by it.  I immediately felt guilty when I realized she cried because of the statement.  So I did what probably any other 11-year-old kid would do in that situation. I made a fool of myself to try and make her laugh (I ended up running though the sprinklers).  Her tears confused me because I knew that Christianity was important to her, but she was crying for me.  When I look back on how I viewed Christianity and how I view it now I always think how?  How did I end up totally opposite to where I thought I would end up?

I recently read a small book called "Made For More" by Curtis Martin and in the introduction, Curtis was talking to students about why they go to school. One person said to get an education.  Then Curtis asked them "why do you want an education?"  And another answered so that they could get a job.  And he asked them "why do you need a job?" And that person replied, "to get money."  And finally, Curtis asked them "why do you need money?"  And another student said "in order to be happy."

Happiness.  Everyone likes to be happy and no one likes to be unhappy.  It is the driving factor for why we choose to do anything.  I didn't just wake up one day and think "man, I could really praise some God today".

When I was 11-years-old I didn't know what the concoction to happiness was.  The only thing that made me happy was not doing my homework. But as I got older, I started to realize that life was stressful.  I would wake up days and just feel tired of it all.  

My interest in the Catholic faith stemmed from the fact that my best friend grew up Catholic.  My final push was the fact that the girl I was into in high school was Catholic as well.  I thought to myself "man this girl is the real deal.  Let me look into this Catholic thing.  I wanna know more of what she knows".

I honestly didn't know what I was getting into.  The first few times I attended church I would dress-up in full business attire (which isn't a bad thing) and I would sit in church and not understand a thing.  The only thing I new about Christianity was it made people happy.  In all honesty, I didn't go to church to worship I went with the hope that it would make me happy.

I know I sound selfish, but if you think about it isn't that why anyone chooses follows Christ?  The promise for something more; a place of refuge were we can rest our tired hearts.  Despite the initial discomfort, I decided to keep going.  I started to realize that these people didn't seem very brainwashed. In fact, they seemed pretty loving.  I saw firsthand how God was changing lives.  And I wanted that lovingness, that generosity, that happiness for myself. So I learned, I'm still learning, how to develop a relationship with Christ.  I learned and my knowledge of His plan became more complete. And I appreciated His promises and his power more deeply.

My brother never liked the idea of me being a Christian.  His policy in life is do what makes you happy.  Which is understandable, but if I did what made me happy I would probably be doing drugs and having sex or binge drinking every night.  They would satisfy me for the moment, but then I wouldn't be happy again and I would want more.  Happiness would then just be an imitation; something incomplete.  What he doesn't understand is I am seeking something more long-term.  I am seeking comfort and finding it.  I am holding on to the hope that my prayers will be answered.  

Proving God

How can we prove God exists? Despite the years of controversy that has faced this question, I have taken it upon myself to try and logically prove God. I've tortured my brain all week and the only conclusion I can come up with is, God exists because we can perceive beauty.

Our ability to know what is beautiful is a mystery.  How can we look at a vast, foreboding dark sky and tremble as it canvas's the Earth?  How do we take a bunch of different sounds and put them in such a way that it creates harmonies?  Even self-proclaimed Atheists cannot help but wonder about the ambiguity of the universe.

What is Beauty?

Ancient Greeks recognized that beauty didn't just exist.  They understood that beauty resulted from order.  Much of Roman architecture came about from Greek concepts of shapes to achieve sound structures.  They took simple shapes such as circles and rectangles and created magnificent structures.  The early Greeks knew that beauty resulted not just from a simple shape; but,by the way they were organized and how they complemented each other.  In that light, beauty doesn't just "exist" per se; it is created.  It is order to a seemingly random array of mediums.

If looked at from that point of view, it is no wonder people relate the universe to God.  That somehow, the stars and galaxies worked together in a way so that a planet was created that could sustain life.  A place where cellular life could work in such a way to sustain itself and biological organisms could live off of each other.

Try and look at it in a different way.  If a ship was out at sea, but it had no Captain to steer it, what do you think would happen to that ship?  It would probably hit rocks and sink.  So doesn't it makes sense that the universe has a Captain?  Someone steering it in the right direction and giving it order?

An Atheist's Arguement

A common rebuttal to the theory of God and beauty is that God and beauty are subjective.   That beauty can exist without God.  We simply live in a universe in which beauty can be perceived.  Let's imagine for a second that we lived in a universe in which we couldn't recognize it. Does that make things any less beautiful than they were before?  The mountain scenery didn't change nor did the way the sun reflects off the water.  Our ability to perceive beauty is not relative to beauty in itself.   God can exist with or without our knowledge.

 Despite that, we are given knowledge of beauty.  Recognizing beauty is a direct reflection of God.  We are granted the ability to recognize beauty so we have the ability to recognize God.

"The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas"

Imagine a perfect place.  This place has no crimes, no slanted government officials, no one walking the streets.  A town were everyone is happy and no one ever has a need to complain.  However, "'In a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas, or perhaps in the cellar of one of it s spacious private homes, there is a room.  It has one locked door, and no window.'  And in this room sits a child.  The child is feeble-minded, malnourished, and neglected.  It lives out its days in wretched misery."  The residents of Omelas know that the boy is there.  They also know that the minute this boy is saved, the very moment his body touches the sunlight, all of their happiness will be taken away.  Everything they ever owned and anything that ever brought them pleasure will be taken, so they pretend the boy doesn't exist.

What do you think is the right thing to do?  Would you leave the boy for the sake of everyone else?  Or would you save this boy and as a consequence have everyone else suffer? 

This scenario is from a short story called "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin.  It is basically about the people in town who suddenly become aware of this boy's existence. These people are tortured with the guilt of not saving the child, but they are fearful of the consequences.  Rather than living with the guilt, they leave town.

The story is basically a clash between ethics.  If looked upon from a utilitarian point of view (the greatest happiness for the most) then leaving the boy there is the right decision.  If looked upon from Aristotle's virtue ethic (doing the right thing will give the greatest happiness) then helping the child is the right thing to do.

If you apply a Christian world view into this equation is is fairly obvious which ethic we would most agree with.  It is simple to conclude "well, I didn't directly cause their unhappiness so no sweat off my brow."  But, if thought about more closely you are essentially stealing their happiness away.  You wouldn't want someone else to make you unhappy would you?

Now, lets take these principles and add human lives into the equation.

Lets say there is a suspected terrorist in our custody.  It is fairly certain he has bombs located in populated areas, but he won't disclose their locations.  Is it right to torture this man to save thousands of lives?

Imagine if the Pope was the interrogator.  I can't imagine he practices his back-hand or has much experience in water-torture, but if he were the person to make this decision do you think he would be able to?  Or would he be like the few from Omelas and walk away from the situation altogether?

Should the Pope have a moral obligation not to harm the terrorist despite the consequences?  Or is his moral obligation to save those people despite the cost?

In those types of situations the difference between right and wrong is in a grey area.  Believe it or not, this issue is involved in more issues than you might think, including abortion in America.

Catholics take the position of the virtue ethic: it is never right to have an abortion. They believe they are morally just. While everyone else generally agrees that it is right to have an abortion because the mother's quality of life would be damaged, the baby isn't really alive, or because it is a woman's right to have control over her body.  They too, believe they are morally just.

Think back to the short story about the boy for a minute.  Imagine that the boy is the decision to make abortion illegal.  The people in town are enjoying the freedom that comes with allowing abortion.  Figuratively speaking, lets say you make the decision to bring this boy into the sunlight.  No longer can the people of Omelas enjoy the benefits.  They've been cheated. 

If you asked a pro-choice man why he is that way he will most likely say "because it is a woman's right".  We can conclude he is pro-choice because it benefits other people.  If you asked a pro-choice woman why she is that way she will probably say "because I want the freedom to choose when I have a baby."  She is pro-choice because it benefits her and other women.  They chose the utilitarian ethic on abortion.  "Allowing abortion makes me and others happy and it is what society agrees with, so I will be pro-choice too."

If you asked a pro-life man or women why they are that way they both will say "because it is never right to kill a baby in the womb."  They choose a virtue ethic.

The issue has never been about right and wrong.  People from both views think they are morally just.  The question I want to ask is, can a Christian worldview ever dominate a society bent on utilitarianism?  Is what Christians believe to be right the decision best for everyone else?