What we do not know

Most of the things in this world we do not know. Our not knowing is much greater than our knowing. In terms of beliefs, however, the opposite is often assumed. Beliefs often define themselves precisely from knowledge about this world. This goes so far that one thinks to know what others do not see. These were often the reasons for secessions between churches. “The others are wrong, we are right.”

When communities live out of knowledge, there can be two derailments. The first derailment lies in defining the way of faith within the framework of “right or wrong.” This is also the origin of legal thinking. The other derailment is in seeing knowledge as something advanced. One ends up here with a Gnostic interpretation in which “knowing more” means something like “advanced faith”. Both aberrations tend to build structures to cement their view of the world. If they are communities, it is not difficult to see that one lives from the distinction from other people.

What we don’t know, on the other hand, can seem threatening. It seems all the more threatening because we are under the assumption that we should know (and don’t). Here it becomes clear that our faith has a lot to do with our view of man, our view of God and our view of the world. We understandably tend to interpret this world from known contexts. What is unknown is quickly outside our perception. Knowledge seems to be a necessity in order to exist in this world and in faith. But may we confuse knowledge with the essential? Can we reduce faith to a formula?

Set corner points

Those who think from knowledge may be tempted to define faith. Then you hear sentences like “He doesn’t believe like us” or similar. It would then be a matter of right or wrong, of whether one belongs to it or not, or whether this or that person has already recognized “our truths” or “not yet”. Hardly anyone notices that Jesus or the apostles are not concerned with “believing” certain ideas to be true. It is true that clear cornerstones were set, on the basis of which an interface between the human and the divine was defined (for example, the temple service in Israel). Such facilities can give a great deal of direction and meaning. It can connect. Faith, however, is not. However, one can believe in the God behind these things. This marks the difference between faith and religiosity.

Certain key points can also be identified in the New Testament. Paul, for example, explains the basis of his gospel with the words:

“But I make known to you, my brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the gospel in the form of expression in which I preached it to you, except if you believe only in pretense. – For in the first place I delivered to you what I also received: that Christ died for our sins (according to the Scriptures), that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day (according to the Scriptures), that He appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, the majority of whom remain until now, but some have already fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, and after that to all the apostles.”
1Cor 15,1-7

Paul sets clear cornerstones here on which to base his proclamation. However, this is not a definition of faith. It’s more of a testimony. Something far more important is told through the events described. Everything the apostle describes has to do with a new reality achieved through the action of Christ. What he describes is important, but it is not the core. It only points to the core. There are also many witnesses to the events. The witnesses are not the issue, but what they testify to is. Let’s try to look at this a little more closely with the help of some details:

1. The statement that Christ died for our sins is correct. That’s how we read it. The reality behind this is that we now have peace with God and He looks at us in Christ. This, in turn, is only a prerequisite for us to have unclouded fellowship with God Himself, for that is God’s goal with everything and everyone (1 Cor. 15:28).
2. Another point is the statement that (for example) 500 brothers saw Jesus at once after His resurrection. This is also a reality that Paul describes. However, again, it is only a testimony. It is not a definition of faith. Paul mentions witnesses of the resurrection so that he can say something completely different: Jesus lives and the gospel of grace has a solid foundation through Him. These people here have seen Him and are witnesses of His resurrection.

Cornerstones are defined, but none of the apostles, nor Jesus himself, ever adopted a list of dogmas that it was imperative to believe, as if your salvation depended on it. All of them have only ever pointed to God, taking Jesus’ death and resurrection as the foundation. The good news was never the news that there was finally a list of beliefs, laws or dogmas, but the good news was based on God’s action, which we are allowed to participate in. We can see this in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament, Tenach) as well as in the Greek Scriptures (New Testament). It was never about anything other than God alone.

The limits of the definitions

If the Gospel is about God’s grace, but grace only wants to illustrate how we can have unclouded fellowship with God, then it is about the latter. On the other hand, those who insist on certain definitions run the risk of losing sight of the goal.

It is never about such formulas, but it is always about encounter, true encounter and ultimately encounter with the living God.

Let us think, for example, of the prayer of surrender. This is a popular formula used to mutate people from “unbelievers” to “believers”. This has nothing to do with faith. As a formula, it tends to distract from the essentials. It is not about prayer. It is always about God Himself. Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Bible ever used a so-called surrender prayer as a formula, as is popular in some circles today. There is so much ignorance and uncertainty in some places that it seems to degenerate into formulaic faith. It is never about such formulas, but it is always about encounter, true encounter and ultimately encounter with the living God.

Other people insist that we keep the 10 Commandments, even though the well-known instructions from the Torah were explicitly given only to the people of Israel. This is not to say that these commandments are not good, but it is not a basis for the present time of grace and they were never given to the gentiles as a condition. Here it is important that we learn to differentiate. The law has no saving effect, but was given, according to Paul, only so that “every man’s mouth might be stopped, and the whole world come under the righteous judgment of God, because by works of the law no flesh at all is justified in His sight” (Rom 3:19-20).

These and other things are always put forward, but they miss the point. It is, on the other hand, uncomplicated to get caught up in religious exercises and views. This is not helpful. God is not religious. Rather, we should pray with Paul “that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all sensitivity to it, that you may examine what is essential” (Ph 1:9-10).

Definitions of faith are not helpful because they limit and cement what wants to be alive. Thus faith does not become anarchy, but faith is based on relationship and nourishes itself from the encounter. The focus should not be on a definition because faith does not mean “believing to be true.” The focus should be on Christ. Christ wants to lead us to the Father. Through Him, all believers without distinction have gained access to the Father (Eph 2:18). This is the reliable statement. This creates trust.

I trust someone, namely God. If I trust Him, I will still see many things wrong, but I will still trust Him. Maybe my neighbor thinks very differently than I do, but he trusts God. What is valid then? His supposed ignorance or His trust? Or I meet a Jew, a Muslim, a runaway sheep from my own community, who has nothing to do with the church and the Bible, but who knows deeply that his life depends on one God. Him he trusts. What would apply now?

Faith cannot be thought or found good, it can only be lived.

There is a seduction of definitions. They make faith “tangible”. And that helps us helpless people cope with not knowing. Trust, however, does not know everything, but trusts. This is not a for-truth attitude, but a life attitude. Trust is more powerful than the outward definition of faith. You can say in another way: faith cannot be thought or found good, it can only be lived.

Paul writes the following remarkable words about Christ and our faith:

“That Christ may dwell fully in your hearts through faith, and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strengthened to grasp with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height (to include also to know the love of the Christ that surpasses all knowledge) so that you may be completed to the whole perfection of God.”
Eph 3:17-19

The rooting should not be in dogmas and doctrines, but founded in love we should strengthen in order to discover together (!) all the richness, as well as to recognize the love of Christ that transcends all knowledge (!). Not everything can be known. Some things are beyond knowledge. Surprisingly, the promise mentioned here is “that you may be completed to the entire completion of God.”

I can’t think of a bigger target right now.

Have the courage not to know

I am very much influenced by evangelical theology. I found a lot of good things, because I had concrete questions and was allowed to receive concrete answers. To engage with the Bible also means to engage with God’s activity. That is the positive side.

Over time, however, I have come to see this faithfulness to the Bible also as faithfulness to the letter. The trust is precisely defined to the letter. Trust is in God, but you define it via the Bible. This is not without its problems. On the one hand, I have just had the experience that paying close attention to the wording of the Bible – especially according to the basic text – gives a lot of reliable insight. On the other hand, I also see that some people get stuck with the letter, while many others find it far too “complicated”. Surely it cannot be that a “realization” is considered the yardstick. Many sincere Christians do not care at all. Not everyone ticks identically. However, all are equally loved by God. I am allowed to put my point of view into perspective. I now realize that I am more dependent on God than on my supposedly “correct” knowledge.

Furthermore, there are dogmas and assumptions about the Christian faith that are not confirmed in the Bible. There I discovered that many people like to “add something on” in these situations where the Bible is less accurate. This seems to meet a need. This creates assumptions about the Bible that are grounded in people’s reasoning rather than in the words of the Bible. Paul, however, urges the believer “not to consider things beyond what is written so that you will not become arrogant” (1 Cor. 4:6). A sober faith stays with what is written and does not reason beyond it.

In this situation, doesn’t it simply take courage to leave something unanswered, that is, to “not know” something? This would then be much closer to the biblical testimony than supposed “truths” that have simply been added. There are a lot of examples, such as the Trinity. It is not mentioned in the Bible, and the idea was never taught by Jesus or the apostles. Therefore, I do not feel pressured to believe in something that is not an issue in the Bible. If I distance myself from dogma, I do so because I recognize that it is not mentioned in the Bible. However, what is mentioned has my full attention. I don’t have to block out texts, but can try to interpret each text in its own context. In the process, many questions remain unanswered. There, it takes courage to leave the question unanswered. One can try, in spite of much biblical knowledge, to give the mystery its due space. Maybe I’ll even learn something new.

The narrative Bible

There is one final point that deserves attention here. The supposedly “exact” interpretation of the Bible is often not exact. She interprets for all it’s worth. Figurative language is often lost, the writer’s intentions are not included, and context in general is often not given much attention. Reading the Bible accurately has to do with the doctrine of verbal inspiration. So-called Bible-believing Christians are often unaware that this view is not that old. This view probably has little to do with the situation or strengthening of faith from the original Christian communities.

There are other ways to be “faithful to the Bible” than just by celebrating the letter. Some things in the Bible cannot be measured exactly. That, I assume, was not the intention. The 12 apostles did not become “witnesses of the letter” or “witnesses of the Bible,” but they became “witnesses of the resurrection” (Acts 1:22). They had a story to tell and they did not lead to the Bible, but want to lead to Christ and ultimately to God Himself. This is an important difference. We need the right focus.

This does not relativize the function of the Bible, but a problematic focus on Scripture must remain in light of the actual narrative. Some Bible passages are often used as “proof” to prove a “mechanical-exact Bible interpretation”. These have already been highlighted in the article “Is the Bible reliable (2)”. There is some evidence to suggest that Jesus and the apostles dealt with Scripture differently than contemporary Bible-believing Christians often do. Today, unfortunately, it is still too often about assumptions about faith than about the essence of faith. Central is often still a “definition of faith”, over the bridge of biblical inspiration.

Perhaps we should just learn to listen carefully to the Bible and be careful not to jump to any conclusions about it. This also requires the courage to stay closer to the word, to be open to the context, and not to revel in preconceived notions. We are in a process and hopefully will remain so throughout our lives. Cultivating a bit more of a learning culture would probably be more purposeful than attaching definitions to be believed.