As soon as you ask how we believe, it is no longer directly about what we believe, but rather about what we do with it. How one believes outlines a direction and attitude of faith. This is something different.

On many websites of faith communities you can find information about what people in this community believe. It is not uncommon for it to be a list of statements about what you stand for. There is no doubt that such a list has value. Perhaps there are positive features to such a list, but perhaps there are also negative ones. I would like to omit a rating here. However, I would like to point out that many communities limit and separate themselves by listing the things they believe in. All institutionalized communities developed in this way. This has shaped the church of the past.

By making a statement about what you believe in a community, you give yourself something like a telephone number where you can be reached and in which city you are at home. You describe what you think about certain topics. Some will recognize themselves in it and approve of the list, while others will perhaps reject such a list. What you believe unites and divides. However, it is not the only parameter that can be used to describe a community. The church of the future may not be defined by this one parameter (“what”). It is a one-sided coinage.

The “what” does not answer the question of what life is like in this community.

Two-component glue for a stable identity

In contrast, the question of “how one believes” is characterized less by the content of faith than by an attitude of faith. It’s more about the alignment of the heart and togetherness. Under no circumstances should the content of faith be played off against an attitude of faith. Both things are important. I just notice how in many communities much more importance is attached to the content of faith than to the way people treat it and each other. Communities then give me the impression that they function detached from life.

In the past, the emphasis on the content of faith and the juxtaposition of right and wrong led to splits, demarcations and a lot of know-it-all attitude. I recognize this as a problem of the Christian past. However, with all due respect to tradition and development, I ask myself whether an emphasis only on the content of faith is enough? On the other hand, I know of religious communities that claim to place great value on the attitude of faith. However, this often happens without a basis and foundation from Scripture. This seems Christian, but can just as well be lived without Christianity or only speaks of a certain subculture. There is a good sense of community, but there is a lack of identity.

If you look in the New Testament at how Paul structured his letters, there are often two components:

1. What one believes (doctrine). For example, Romans 1-11 or Ephesians 1-3.
2. How to believe (way of life). For example, Romans 12-16 or Ephesians 4-6.

His letters often have both components. This is now something like a two-component glue. You need both things to achieve healthy cohesion in a community. A one-sided alignment has no adhesive strength. No identity can be formed or maintained. With both components, you can imagine how it works better:

What you believe establishes your identity.
How you believe shapes your identity.

If you want to find, shape and fulfill your identity, you need both components. If you only define yourself in terms of “what”, you obviously can’t maintain a community with people who think differently. This leads to heresies, splits and the like. Those who only define themselves by the “how”, on the other hand, have no basis for a community. The fulfillment of identity takes place in growth. It delights neither in its own knowledge nor in its own actions. It needs both things for healthy growth. It needs input (“what”) for a differentiated basis and it needs a confrontation in everyday life (“how”) for the ideas to harden.

One-sidedness is problematic

The balance between the two questions “what we believe” and “how we believe” is not self-evident. Many communities and churches lack both the one and the other. People live mainly by tradition. Other communities emphasize togetherness, are family-friendly and kind to one another. They use the phrase: “as we believe”. Still other groups and groupings put the Bible first in everything and are predominantly characterized by biblical knowledge. This is primarily about what you believe. All these variants are embossed on one side. This is problematic.

It’s understandable that you want to talk to people who tick and function in the same way as you do. Those who have very specific personal questions, for example, may be looking for answers and may be attracted to communities that are primarily concerned with Bible knowledge. The questioner comes to the answerer. You look for like-minded people. This probably stems from a human need. There’s nothing wrong with that, but that doesn’t make it balanced. A healthy attitude is perhaps to recognize that one’s own understanding is incomplete and to be aware that we only develop in community. Beliefs also only prove themselves in everyday life.

Paul links the what with the how, the doctrine with the practice of life. His approach was balanced. Today, churches and communities are often characterized by one-sidedness. They set themselves apart from others when doctrine is central. Or they lose themselves in social activities if the practice of life is seen as a fulfillment of faith, or even as an alternative to a fulfillment of faith.

Growth in the community

Here is something Paul says to the believers about the structure of the church:

“The same (Christ) gives some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists or as shepherds and teachers
– to adapt the saints to the work of the ministry,
for the edification of the body of Christ,
until we all come to the unity of faith
and the knowledge of the Son of God,
to a mature man,
to the measure of the full growth of the perfection of Christ.”
Eph 4:11-13

This list shows that evangelists, shepherds and teachers all have their place today (apostles and prophets formed the foundation, Eph 2:20). One-sidedness arises when it has only an evangelistic, only a diaconal or only a doctrinal focus. The smaller the circle in which you move, the faster a derailment occurs. This is where exaggerated ideas of one’s own knowledge arise. Being aware of this can help you to consciously open up to larger forms of community or become active in your neighborhood, for example.

Evangelists, shepherds and teachers were given to build up the church. They all contribute something important. It must never be exclusively about one of these tasks. In my opinion, everyone who has a task should point out that it is about more, that it is about community and shared knowledge in the larger community. If you only push yourself, your task and a particular insight, you should critically question yourself.

The structure of Christ’s body requires that we recognize things together, but it is more than that. Knowledge is never central, but rather that one grows towards Christ so that all may come to the completion of Christ. Paul always had the whole community in mind. That’s why he had mentioned it shortly before:

“That Christ may dwell in your hearts completely through faith
and may you, rooted and grounded in love, grow stronger,
to grasp with all the saints,
what is the width and length and depth and height
(in order to recognize the love of Christ that transcends all knowledge),
so that you may be completed for the entire completion of God.”
Eph 3:17-19

You can’t do it alone. A small group with a single focus is also not complete. The letter to the Ephesians mentions that the church should come to the perfection of God and also to the perfection of Christ. Completion indicates the completion to fullness. Together with all the other saints, one can be “made complete for the entire completion of God”. In Paul’s words, which sound somewhat strange for today’s world, we hear an understanding that it is only possible together. It is not for nothing that all believers were called into one body (this imagery of the Church of Christ) to fulfill different functions in it. As part of the whole body, we see and hear better, our faith becomes richer and our growth is soberly and diversely challenged to maturity (Eph 4:13).

How we believe

So the apostle Paul is not only talking about teaching, but also about what it does and where it leads. It is not about the knowledge that is recognized in you and me, but about the impulse for further growth that comes from it. Nor is it about individual people as a target. Paul sees fulfillment in the community. This probably does not mean attending a Bible study alone. In the beginning, you may be unsettled by these and those teachings, writes the apostle in the next verses. Teachers can give helpful insight here and there, making liberation possible and no longer being troubled by different teachings (Eph 4:14).

As we believe, speaks of this alignment of the heart, of growth. Of course, this requires a healthy basis. However, the basics are never the goal. It’s about growing towards Christ. The Bible and healthy teaching can only encourage and enable this. Biblical knowledge, on the other hand, is never the goal. Faithfulness to the letter, special teachings, self-righteousness and heresy against others are expressions of a derailment. Healthy growth usually happens in community. Together you will find the richness of a healthy balance and only together will you receive the encouragement that “completes God”.

Having this declared goal in mind is also something of a touchstone for your own vision:

“But if we are true,
we should make everything grow in love,
into Him who is the head, Christ.”
Eph 4:15