CHRISTIAN FAITH versus PSEUDO-FAITH

For the sake of clarity, let me first briefly state the proposition of this essay: “Faith that seeks to be validated by canons provided by anything outside revelation is not Christian faith, but is actually unbelief.” At the end of this essay, I hope that readers will be (1) more aware of the often unqualified engagement of contemporary theology with other sources of knowledge leading to an uncritical form of dialogue, which, rather than enriching theology actually contradicts faith; and (2) able to distinguish the difference between Christian faith and Christian-unbelief-disguised-as-faith (or, pseudo-faith).

What is “faith”? The definition in Hebrews 11:1 of faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” provides us with a solid framework. When this is juxtaposed with Jesus statement to Thomas (the Doubter) in John 20:29, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed,” both passages provide us with interesting insights about both the faith-agent (the who) and the faith-content (the what). Briefly, the faith-agent in the present is asked to believe a future reality (Heb 11:1) or a past reality (John 20:29) that are non-validated by sight. Jesus’ statement in John 20:29 points specifically to a past event (the resurrection), and Thomas’ pessimism about its reality. Faith, thus, is the obedient and submissive “I believe” of the faith-agent to divine realities, whether they are (1) God’s statement about Himself or (2) God’s acts both in the future and the past. Admittedly, while perhaps future realities are hard to believe on the basis of their transcendent nature, unbelief of past divine statements and events should be considered absolutely intolerable, at least in Christian theology.

The key insight here is that Christian faith is essentially obedient assent to God’s own objective Self-revelation and Self-actuation, even though there may be no empirical or material evidences that warrant the truthfulness of faith-contents. Faith-contents simply possess transcendent qualities that cannot be fitted with human-invented categories of verification, whether empirical or philosophical. It is for this reason that faith is essentially blind, and it should be blind if it is to be truly faith. The definition in Hebrews 11 clearly indicates that faith means intellectual assent in the absence of empirical proof, particularly visual evidence. John 20 even calls those who believe without presented evidences to be “blessed.” True Christians, Paul writes, “live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7).

The question, perhaps is this: “Can belief in and devotion to something empirically unverifiable rational?” Or to put it more bluntly: “Are Christians sane?” The answer is a resounding YES. In fact, faith is a science in its own right. It has its subject (the faith-agent; although the ultimate Subject is God) and object (the faith-content, who is also the Subject, God). Now all sciences have their own procedures and apparatuses of investigation. For instance, astronomers look up and use telescopes because the objects of their investigations are the distant bodies. Biologists, on the other hand, generally look down and use microscopes because the objects of their investigations are organisms and their micro-construction. Now while astronomy and biology are both sciences, they are nevertheless two different sciences with distinct methodologies and apparatuses. As such, it is illogical and unscientific for an astronomer to use a microscope to study the stars.  Astronomy, to remain scientific, should faithfully oblige itself to a method of inquiry in accordance to its object of investigation. It is only through this that astronomy could be considered rational. Similarly, if faith is a science, then faith-agents should subject themselves to the nature of the faith-contents. As such, because the faith-contents are essentially not empirically verifiable, then faith-agents have to faithfully comply to faith-contents’ demands or non-demands. It is only through this that faith is rational, i.e. when faith-agents submit their rationalities to the unique logic and rationality of the faith-content.

Ultimately, therefore, to believe or have faith in something only because it has been proven by categories of verification outside of the science of faith is not Christian faith, but is actually unbelief, or at least an evidence of unbelief. Let us look at the statements below:

(s1) Pigs do not fly.

(s2) Pigs fly.

(s3) God exists, because philosophical argumentation proves it.

(s4) God exists, although it can never be proven by human reasoning or empirical testing.

(s1) is a statement of unbelief based on empirical data. It is a rational unbelief because the faith-agent submits his/her rationality to the nature of pigs that reveal and manifest themselves as creatures unable to fly.

(s2)  is a statement of belief without regard of empirical data. It is an irrational belief because the faith-agent does not subject his/her rationality to the nature of pigs that reveal and manifest themselves as creatures unable to fly.

(s3) masquerades itself as a statement of faith, but it is actually a statement of unbelief. This is because the faith-agent only believes after being intellectually satisfied. Without intellectual satisfaction, the state of having faith would not have been achieved. It is also irrational because the faith-agent does not submit his/her rationality to the nature of the object of inquiry (God), who reveals himself as transcendent and beyond logical proof.

(s4) is a statement of faith. This is Christian faith. God, whose nature remains transcendent and immeasurable by human-invented methodologies and apparatuses can never be subject to human verification. It is rational because the faith-agent submits his/her rationality to the transcendent rationality of its Object, God. Also, it is Christian faith because it believes that God’s Self-spoken statements and Self-actualizing interaction within space and time are only validated and authenticated by God Himself.

This brings us to the crucial questions: “So what now of the attempts of contemporary theology to verify faith-contents through non-theological sources?” “Is this endeavour rational or irrational?” “Does this serve Christian faith or actually promote unbelief?” “Does preaching about a verified truth not implicitly encourage unbelief towards unverifiable truths?” While I genuinely believe in the practice of apologetics, the engagement of Christian theology with other fields of inquiry, and the need for Christian theology to be relevant with aspects of everyday life, as a Christian theologian, I think (with K Barth TF Torrance) that the Gospel has its own rationality and logic that can never be measured by other sciences and fields of inquiry. To attempt to reconcile faith-contents with extra-biblical resources to the point of believing only on the basis of validating philosophical, scientific and cultural canons is actually atheism, and thus pseudo-faith.


Jesus is Lord!