WHAT'S IN A NAME?

I am of the belief (as are others) that God is so big and unimaginable that there is absolutely NO way in which we are able to fully define or describe God. We do not have the knowledge of God OR the vocabulary to do so. Of course, we are human beings, so we try. In fact, we need to in order to: speak to others about God; learn more about God; think about God; and even talk to God. Try as we may, however, we cannot fully describe God.

Many people want to confine God to only the image of "Father," forgetting the many images of God in Scripture that compare God to a mother or a woman. In addition, we disregard the fact that the Hebrew word(s) that we see translated as "compassion" or "compassionate" actually mean that God is "womb-like."

Often, we get hung up on limiting God to the words that we TRY to describe God with. We, therefore, limit our understanding of God and how God works. I find that very limiting on us as humans as well. We are, according to Scripture, created in God's image. To limit our understanding of God is also to limit our understanding of who WE can be as well.

Often, well meaning Christians will agree with the statement of the first paragraph of this post. Then, in the next breath, they will say that people who call God, "Allah" don't worship the "same" God that we do. More often than not, these people don't realize that even Christians who speak the Arabic language ALSO call God, "Allah." That's just the Arabic word for God.

Some people will concede that Muslims do worship the same God, but those "Buddhists" and other religions who don't explicitly worship a personified God do not worship God. I find this troubling. Often, these religions refuse to personify God. Yet, they talk about a "sacred more" - something that is beyond us that is sacred. For these religions, the goal is for us to live more purposefully and wholly in this sacred "more" or "other." I see a great sense of awe and "worshipfullness" in these people. They understand that God cannot fully be described and to try to describe God can be limiting. This can create a false sense of who and how God is.

The issue and difference is ultimately a difference in how we define God. If you think about it, one's name is really just a "metaphor" or a way to "define" the person. Similarly, the word, "God," is just a "metaphor" or a way we try to "define" God. Let us be careful not to limit God with our mere words.

FAITH IN OR FAITH OF?

Much of modern Christianity is based around the idea that one must have "faith IN Jesus Christ" to have "salvation." More often than not, this leads to, "There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ" - which makes me shudder.

I ask the question, where does one get this idea that one must have faith in Christ to have salvation? Well, the easy answer is, "The Bible says so." Does it really?

Let's look at a typical example in Scripture that is often used to support the idea of faith IN Christ:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith IN Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith IN Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith IN the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2, NRSV, emphasis mine)

WOW! Look at all that "evidence" - or is it evidence? Let us take a look at the footnotes found in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible. In each of the three instances above, many scholars would translate that "the faith OF (not in) Christ." Let's look at the entire passage with this translation:

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by THE FAITH OF CHRIST, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2, NRSV, emphasis mine to highlight the footnote additions)

What's the difference? Well, faith IN Christ easily becomes an intellectual thing. "I believe in Christ, or I have faith in Christ." We easily translate that into meaning faith IN Christ, and no other, is necessary for salvation.

How different is that when we accept the translation that many scholars believe is more "literal," that we should have the faith OF Christ? How different would our lives be if we had the faith OF Christ and realized that there is nothing that can happen to us in this world (even crucifixion) that God cannot help us through? Christ could see that even though he'd rather the "cup be removed from him," that God was going to continue to work and inspire others to carry on the work he started. Whether one believes in a literal resurrection of Christ or not, one can see the resurrection of "the Way" after all the disciples scattered at the first sign of trouble.

For me, having faith IN Christ is not very helpful. It is only an intellectual statement. I wonder, though, how can it be that I can have faith IN Christ when, according to verse 20, Christ lives IN me? If we do allow Christ to live in us, whether we have faith IN Christ or not, aren't we allowing ourselves to have the faith OF Christ? Doesn't the faith OF Christ lead us to be more like Christ so that we might "live to God" (Galatians 2:19). If non-Christians have the faith OF Christ, aren't they also justified or have salvation?

Why don't we try to have the faith OF Christ? All too often, I think we are simply afraid to have the faith OF Christ, which is to have no faith at all. We're afraid where it might lead us. Look at Jesus. Look at the early martyrs. Look at Gandhi (who, by the way, "religiously" studied the Sermon on the Mount). Look at Martin Luther King, Jr. They all died living the faith OF Christ.

Let's live to God. Let's follow the leading of the faith OF Christ. Remember, it might be Friday, but Sunday's coming. (Get it... Jesus is said to have died on Good Friday and was resurrected on Easter Sunday - what do we have to fear except fear itself).