You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘joy’ tag.
I tire of life. Quite often, actually. My allegiance is to my God and my King, and my citizenship is to another country; the trials of this temporary home feel far too permanent. The visible community that serves to foreshadow an invisible one does its best to offer hope and comfort, yet tends to fall tragically short. Answers are rote and routine in nature, paling in comparison with the weight of the world we are often asked to bear.
When the church uses common thoughts and phrases, exhorting us to persevere in God’s grace, trust in His wisdom, and have faith He will deliver us, my soul yearns for the divine truth and reality undergirding these cliché responses. My entire being aches for His Spirit’s illuminating glow on my heart and mind. In desperation I wonder: What is faith? What does it mean to trust in that which I cannot perceive with these five senses? How do I live coram deo, when I must rely on things unseen to do so? “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1 ESV)
Faith is altogether essential to the Christian life, yet seems far too difficult to conceive of. In what follows, we will embark on a discussion of the true construction of faith: What is its nature? What is its object? What are its implications? In examining the constitution of faith, I hope to present a better understanding of one of the more fundamental concepts to the Christian experience.
Aiding us in our exploration will be two individuals who, at first glance, have little in common: SÆren Kierkegaard and J. Gresham Machen. While Kierkegaard died in 1855 and Machen wasn’t born until 1881, their experiences in life were remarkably similar. Kierkegaard is well known for being the “Socratic Gadfly” of Copenhagen, and often was scathingly critical of the cultural Christianity – or Christendom as he called it – that plagued Denmark during his lifetime. Similarly, Machen fought long and hard against the Liberalism that took up a dominant position of influence during his lifetime. As a result of their viewpoints, both Kierkegaard and Machen were heavily criticized in some way or another; Kierkegaard was unceremoniously abused in the Corsair Affair and roundly criticized for his attack on the Danish National Church, and Machen was expelled from his denomination outright.
Despite having numerous enemies while living, both Kierkegaard and Machen have been widely celebrated posthumously for their work. Kierkegaard is regarded by many as the father of modern existentialism, and Machen’s work as a New Testament scholar and staunch opponent of liberalism renders his work valuable to the believer even today.
Both Kierkegaard and Machen wrote extensively on the topic of faith. In what follows we shall examine both Kierkegaard’s and Machen’s views on faith. We will see that Machen – as a New Testament scholar – is primarily concerned with the nature, construction, and content of faith. Kierkegaard – as a philosopher – is more concerned with the implications of faith for the individual.
First published in 1925, What is Faith? is a collection of lectures delivered by Machen at Grove City College. More a New Testament scholar than a philosopher – or even a “theologian” for that matter – Machen’s penchant for practical exposition of the scriptures is on display in What is Faith? His lectures were given in the climate of intense sociological upheaval, and Machen was concerned over the anti-intellectual tendencies in society at that time. “Facts, in the sphere of education, are having a hard time.”[1] This tendency expressed itself in religious circles as liberalism. “…the growth of ignorance in the Church, the growth of indifference with regard to the simple facts recorded in the Bible, all goes back to a great spiritual movement, really skeptical in its tendency, which has been going forward during the last one hundred years…”[2]
Machen was ardently opposed to this tendency, and did not want the Christian’s spiritual existence to be based on mystical leanings and uninformed perspectives. “Theology…is a setting forth of those facts upon which experience is based.”[3] To ascertain such facts as they lead the believer to faith, Machen thought it prudent to turn to our most trustworthy source on the topic, the Bible “At any rate, the Bible as a whole, taking prophecy and fulfillment together, is the supreme textbook on the subject of faith.”[4]
Foreshadowing claims of a postmodern generation that disavows allegiance to propositional statements, Machen was sure at the outset to clarify the specific nature of faith. “The Persons in whom according to the Bible faith is particularly to be reposed are God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ…it is impossible to have faith in a person without having knowledge of the person; far from being contrasted with knowledge, faith is founded upon knowledge.”[5] Is faith then merely a propositional knowledge? Surely not, for faith must not be comprised solely of knowledge, but assent to the knowledge contained therein. “In the first place, religion is here made to depend absolutely upon doctrine, the one who comes to God must not only believe in a person, but he also must believe that something is true; faith is here declared to involve acceptance of a proposition.”[6]
Machen relies on Hebrews 11: 6, “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him,” to orchestrate an ordo salutis of sorts pertaining to faith in God. “In order to trust God or to have communion with Him we must at least believe that He exists.”[7] Machen is at pains to show, rather than subscribing entirely to one extreme that faith is entirely knowable to the human intellect or the other that faith is purely a mystical experience, faith is a mixture of both. “…the author of the Epistle of the Hebrews insists upon the primacy of the intellect; he bases religion squarely upon truth. He does not, of course, reject that immediate and mysterious contact of the soul with God which is dear to the mystic’s heart; for that immediate contact of the soul with God is a vital part of all religion worthy of the name.”[8]
However, Machen is not content with an abstract faith in an impersonal god – akin to Deism. Machen is concerned with a faith in a redeeming God who loves and saves. “In the Bible, then, it is not merely God as creator who is the object of faith, but also, primarily, God as Redeemer from sin…In Christ the redeeming work of God became visible; it is Christ, therefore, very naturally, who is ordinarily represented as the object of faith.”[9] And in having Christ as the object of our faith, there are again propositions to which we must adhere; things we must know. “For one thing, we need to know that He is alive; we need to know, therefore, about resurrection. And then we need to know how it is that He can touch our lives; and that involves a knowledge of the atonement and of the way in which He saves us from our sin.”[10]
Machen is clear to delineate three very important things regarding faith in Christ so as not to confuse the reader. First, the knowledge that precedes faith does not have to be exhaustive in any way. “…faith may come first, on the basis of very elementary knowledge, and then fuller knowledge may come later.”[11] Second, faith is intended to be simple and – as Christ Himself announced – childlike. “The faith of the modern pragmatist is a very subtle, sophisticated, unchildlike thing; what is really childlike is the faith that is founded upon knowledge of the one in whom trust is reposed.”[12] And thirdly, Machen is sure to re-affirm that through faith we receive all Christ has to offer, and through no works of our own; our knowledge cannot earn us faith. “What mars the simplicity of the childlike faith which Jesus commends is not an admixture of knowledge, but an admixture of self-trust. To receive the kingdom as a little child is to receive it as a free gift without seeking in slightest measure to earn it for one’s self.”[13]
One might be tempted to posit that in light of this, faith is solely passive and the believer does nothing but allow faith to be exercised to him, or at the very least on his behalf. In one sense it appears this is accurate. “Faith, in other words, is not active but passive; and to say that we are saved by faith is to say that we do not save ourselves but are saved only by the one in whom our faith is reposed; the faith of man presupposes the sovereign grace of God.”[14] However, it is accurate only to the extent that Machen wants to show that the believer cannot earn faith or achieve it, but instead can only respond to God. “Thus the beginning of the Christian life is not an achievement, but an experience…”[15]
Machen is quick to anticipate the obvious question when faith is painted in this picture of passivity. “But if the beginning of the Christian life is thus not an achievement but an experience, if a man is not really active, but passive, when he is saved, if faith is to be placed in sharp contrast with works, what becomes of the ethical character of the Christian religion…”[16] And in light of this question, Machen turns to the New Testament to find differing uses of the word “faith” and their different implications.
“But if the faith regarded insufficient by James is different from the faith commended by Paul, so also the works commended by James are different from the works regarded inefficacious by Paul. Paul is speaking of the works of the law, he is speaking of works that are intended to merit in order that God’s favour may be earned; James on the other hand is speaking of works like Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac that are the result of faith and show that faith is real faith.”[17]
In other words, the works that Paul speaks of are impossible for the believer, because they are an attempt to earn the gracious favor of God, while the works James references are the outward signs of the inwardly renewed life, the life of the believer that has been renewed by placing his faith in the saving and sanctifying power of Jesus Christ.
Admittedly, Machen does a great service to the believer in so clearly laying out the constitution of faith. However, for the struggling Christian, the believer who desires to know God deeply and intimately, his answers might come dangerously close to another cliché, wooden definition of faith – one that is devoid of passion, intensity, or deep-seated meaning. There is still the desire to move from the theoretical to the practical – from the conceptual premises of faith to the actual implications therein. With this mind we will for the time being turn our conversation to the second of our guides in this journey, SÆren Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard’s literary legacy is voluminous to say the least, and scattered across dozens of published works and thousands of journal entries are countless references to the concept of faith. We shall do our best to limit our discussion to only the most pertinent mentions of faith, and those that serve our greater context of comparing Machen’s and Kierkegaard’ thoughts on faith.
When discussing Kierkegaard on faith, what generally comes to mind first is his notion of “the leap”. We must point out that Kierkegaard never truly discusses a leap of faith, but more accurately the leap to faith. “He does, however, clearly and often refer to the concept of a leap (Spring) and to the concept of a transition (Overgang) that is a qualitative (qvalitativ) or, alternatively, a meta-basis eis allo genos (transition from one genus to another)…”[18] In other words, Kierkegaard does not discuss a leap of faith, where one employs faith as a tool or instrument, but more accurately a leap to faith, where one undergoes, “qualitative transformation to religiousness and to faith in an eminent sense, namely, Christian religiousness.”[19]
Kierkegaard seems to endorse – as Machen might say – not the manipulation of faith to procure an achievement of Christian living, but rather sees faith as the vehicle by which the Christian lives his life. “Can there be a transition from quantitative qualification to a qualitative one without a leap? And does not the whole of life rest in that?”[20] We began this discussion by wondering how to live a life of faith despite the fact that faith is rooted in hope and things unseen. It is becoming clear that living in faith includes wrestling with the tension of trust that which do not see. According to Kierkegaard, the choices made while existing in this tension are life defining.
Through this concept of defining oneself through choice or action we find the perfect context in which we can return to our conversation of Abraham and Isaac, whom Kierkegaard deals with in one of his most well known works, the multi-faceted Fear and Trembling. Abraham is the perfect case study for Kierkegaard because of that precarious predicament atop Mt. Moriah where Abraham gave Isaac up for dead through a divinely instructed sacrifice, only to have God prevail in His faithfulness and return Isaac to Abraham.
In Stages on Life’s Way Kierkegaard has separated life into three stages, or spheres. “There are three existence-spheres: the esthetic, the ethical, and the religious…The ethical sphere is only a transition sphere…The esthetic sphere is the sphere of immediacy, the ethical the sphere of requirement (and this requirement is so infinite that the individual always goes bankrupt), the religious the sphere of fulfillment…”[21] Kierkegaard goes on to explain that this fulfillment is not the sort to allow one achievement or accomplishment, but instead experience the fulfillment of a life of paradox, contradiction, and security. Faith has the ability to comfort despite being based on things hoped for and unseen.“…and as a consequence the religious contradiction: simultaneously to be out on 70,000 fathoms of water and yet be joyful.”[22]
In Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard uses Abraham as his point of reference to further clarify his latter two stages, the ethical and the religious, by discussing the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. The individual in the ethical stage does what is right, but he does it to appease himself, having made himself the standard. This individual is the Knight of Infinite Resignation. “The act of resignation does not require faith, for what I gain in resignation is my eternal consciousness. This is a purely philosophical movement that I venture to make when it is demanded and can discipline myself to make, because every time some finitude will take power over me, I starve myself into submission until I make the movement…”[23]
It is in this distinction that we begin to see Kierkegaard’s helpfulness in determining faith as not just something we know, but something we live. The ethical sphere of existence presents itself as that in which we live without much self-awareness. We exist to follow the rules and do that which we think is right, without consideration to a why behind the what. In the ethical sphere, what the individual would call faith is actually based on something physical and tangible, my conscience and myself. In so doing, the Knight of Infinite Resignation avoids the unknown and unseen.
Were Abraham merely the Knight of Infinite Resignation, he still would have offered up his son Isaac for sacrifice, but only because his ethical consciousness bound him to the directives of God, who commanded the sacrifice. Because the Knight of Infinite Resignation has constructed for himself an ethical system of obedience to the infinite and absurd, he will follow through on the divine’s commands. In resignation he gives up his son through sacrifice, and has lost all hope. “In ethical terms, Abraham’s relation to Isaac is quite simply this: the father shall love the son more than himself.”[24] He has no choice but to subscribe to the universal and its dictates for his life.
To the outside world, the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith are identical, and only to the divine are they discernable. “Now let us meet the knight of faith on the occasion previously mentioned. He does exactly the same as the other knight did: he infinitely renounces the love that is the substance of his life, he is reconciled in pain. But then the marvel happens; he makes one more movement even more wonderful than all the others, for he says: Nevertheless I have faith that I will get her – that is, by virtue of the absurd, by virtue of that fact that for God all things are possible.”[25]
According to Kierkegaard Abraham is not the Knight of Infinite Resignation, but the Knight of Faith. The Knight of Infinite Resignation sees the ethical limit as the end of his existence with nothing beyond it. “The ethical as such is the universal, and as the universal it applies to everyone, which from another angle means that it applies at all times. It rests immanent in itself, has nothing outside itself that is its telos [end, purpose] but is itself the telos for everything outside itself, and when the ethical has absorbed this into itself, it goes no further.”[26]
As the Knight of Faith, Abraham renounces Isaac, only to know in faith that God will return Isaac to him. In faith does Abraham live, and in faith does he offer Isaac in sacrifice, knowing he will not be left wanting. He bases this on no immediate knowledge or sensation, but on faith and hope. Faith permits the individual to live beyond the limits of the universal – the structures and strictures of this present world – and instead by relation to the absurd and the absolute. Abraham subscribes not to his own ethico-moral conscience, but to a teleological suspension of the ethical.
“Faith is precisely this paradox that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal, is justified before it, not as inferior to but as superior – yet in such a way, please note, that is the single individual who, after being subordinate as the single individual to the universal, now by means of the universal becomes the single individual who as the single individual is superior, that the single individual as the single individual stands in an absolute relation to the absolute.”[27]
In faith Abraham suspends the universal, ethical system through his love for and devotion to the absurd and absolute – God. Abraham acted out of his absolute relation to the absolute, and not out of his duty to the universal and ethical. “Abraham’s situation is different. By his act he transgressed the ethical altogether and had a higher telos outside it, in relation to which he suspended it.”[28]
Is living in this fashion, subscribing to something above a universal ethic, dangerous? Certainly. “Without risk, no faith. Faith is the contradiction between the infinite passion of inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am able to apprehend God objectively, I do not then have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith. If I want to keep myself in faith, I must continually see to it that I hold fast the objective uncertainty…”[29]
This leap to faith, this existence where one lives by abiding in the teological suspension of the ethical, this life depending on the balance of objective uncertainty and subjective inwardness, is a life–defining commitment. Wrestling in that tension is part of existence and is something every individual involves himself in. “The existing subject…is engaged in existing, which is indeed the case with every human being.”[30] Through the lens of Kierkegaard’s existentialism, where one is continually engaged in the process of defining one’s own existence, the leap to faith is a foundational part of this defining move. “…existence itself, the act of existing, is a striving.”[31]
One’s project in life – one’s means of defining one’s own existence – is centered on the essential knowledge that informs us. “All essential knowledge that pertains to existence, or only the knowing whose relation to existence is essential is essential knowing. Essentially viewed, the knowing that does not inwardly in the reflection of inwardness pertain to existence is accidental knowing, and its degree and scope, essentially viewed, are a matter of indifference.”[32] Living an authentic faith based on decision, then, is the project the individual must take up to find himself living an authentic existence in the face of the tension of subjectivity. “Only in subjectivity is there decision.”[33]
What then, is faith? Faith is the inward resolve to live in the face of that uncertainty. Faith relies on a type of sight that is not limited by our five senses. To live by faith, I must learn not to bemoan the fact that I cannot learn of faith through my five senses, but I must rejoice in that fact, for faith truly is the assurance of things hoped for and of things unseen. “Thus faith is not merely founded upon knowledge; but also it leads to knowledge.”[34] As knowledge, faith is not blind, but truly a means by which we are illuminated. “Faith is closely connected in the New Testament with hope; and it is contrasted in notable passages with sight.”[35] It is with the sight that faith affords do we truly see, and in seeing have hope.
In Machen we have seen what faith is, and in Kierkegaard we have seen what faith may require of the individual believer. We see that as Machen pushed for faith based on objective and propositional knowledge, Kierkegaard reminds us we will not have an exhaustive or completed knowledge of God, even if we do have a truthful knowledge of Him. Through faith we see, and through seeing we have hope. And in having hope, we are equipped to truly persevere, and we praise God that “…the Christian lives by hope.”[36]
We do not press to merely know about God. No, we press to know about God that we might know Him personally and intimately. Faith is not the achievement of knowing about God, but is the experience of truly and simply knowing Him. And in knowing Him, may we glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
[1] Machen, J. Gresham. What is Faith? Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle; 1991. 15.
[2] Ibid 23
[3] Ibid 32
[4] Ibid 45
[5] Ibid 46
[6] Ibid 47
[7] Machen 48
[8] Ibid 49
[9] ibid 87
[10] ibid 91-92
[11] ibid 94
[12] ibid 94
[13] ibid 95
[14] ibid 195
[15] ibid 197
[16] ibid 198
[17] ibid 204, emphasis original
[18] Ferreira, James M. Faith and the Kierkegaardian Leap in The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, ed. Hannay, Alastair and Marino, Gordon D. Cambridge University Press; New York: 1998. 207.
[19] ibid
[20] Journals and Papers, Volume I, page 110; as found in Ferrerira 207.
[21] From Stages on Life’s Way as found in: Hong, H and Hong, . ed. The Essential Kierkegaard. Princeton University Press; Princeton: 2000. 182.
[22] Ibid
[23] Hong, H and Hong E ed. Fear and Trembling, Repetition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983. 48.
[24] Ibid 57
[25] Ibid 46
[26] Ibid 54
[27] Ibid 55-56
[28] Ibid 59
[29] From Concluding Unscientific Postscript, as found in The Essential Kierkegaard, 207.
[30] Kierkegaard in Concluding Unscientific Postscript as found in Bretall, Robert, A Kierkegaard Anthology. Princeton University Press; Princeton: 1946. 206.
[31] Kierkegaard in Concluding Unscientific Postscript, as found in Guignon, Charles and Pereboom, Derek. Existentialism: Basic Writings. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.; Indianapolis: 2001. 7.
[32] Concluding Unscientific Postscript as found in The Essential Kierkegaard, 205.
[33] Ibid 206
[34] Machen 229
[35] Ibid 223
[36] Ibid 220.
We are told in verse 5 of 1 Thessalonians 1 that the Gospel of Jesus Christ came not just in words, but in power.
The greek word for power here comes from dunamis, from which we get the word dynamite. The idea carried with dunamis is an inherent power, or a power that comes simply from the nature of the empowering thing.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not need to rely on schemes of man, emotional appeals, or miraculous confirmation – the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the embodiment of transformational and life-giving power.
The Gospel is effectually applied through the life of the Holy Spirit. Theologians would say the job of the Holy Spirit is spiration, whereby He engages in the application of redemption.
We see also that the Holy Spirit brought joy to the early believers at Thessalonica, and that He did so in spite of suffering. In our emotional vocabulary, suffering and struggling are independent spheres of existence and have no room for anything except for the woes therein.
But our God is bigger than that, and so then promises joy in spite of – and indeed in the midst of – our most trying circumstances.
The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
Matthew 13: 44-46
Much of our Christian life is like this: forsaking the many – the things of this world – for the One in whom we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28).
In leaving go of so many things on this earth for the sake of Jesus, there is bound to be fear and anxiety. We know the Gospel is a worthy goal, but that doesn’t make it any easier through the trials and tribulations this life has to offer. We only know that goal as in a dimly lit mirror, for now do we only know in part (1 Corinthians 13: 12).
And so while the day is coming when we will know in full, what sustains us while we travel? What gives us provision while we pursue the treasure or the pearl?
For we know that once we have grabbed hold of that prize, sanctifying grace has had its way in our hearts, and we stand before our Savior fully glorified, we will have neither want nor worry ever again. But what shall carry us on until that day?
Notice our man from Matthew 13:44: When he found the treasure in the field, he went away and in his joy sold all he had for the sake of obtaining the field. In the original Greek text we can see that the man did not manufacture joy in his being or go looking for joy, but that the treasure in the field caused him to have joy.
The prospect of selling all he had to own the treasure was the very cause of his joy. The treasure was so great that it had the power to sustain him in the pursuit of it as well as provide for him once he obtained it.
There was joy inherent within the task of forsaking all in the name of obtaining the One. This was not a task taken begrudgingly or with mere obligation, this was the a cause of joy beyond which the man had never known.
Kierkegaard had it right when he said purity of the heart is to will one thing:
Father in heaven! What is a man without Thee! What is all that he knows, vast accumulation though it be, but a chipped fragment if he does not know Thee! What is all his striving, could it even encompass a world, but a half-finished work if he does not know Thee: Thee the One, who art one thing and who art all!
So go, go on your way and be willing to seek the One thing. The prize awaits you, and while it will indeed provide for you one day, there is joy to carry you through in the meantime as well. Seek Jesus Christ almighty today and find peace, purpose, and perseverance in His grace. Pursue Him with all your might, and He will provide.
Be encouraged and of good cheer, for the Lord knows you and knows what you need, and He does not disappoint.
10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work and this was the reward for all my labor. 11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.
- Ecclesiastes 2: 10-11
I hate experiments. I always have. Freshman and sophomore year in college were the worst for me: Chemistry and Organic Chemistry. Our laboratory experiment’s always frustrated me, I never could see the bigger picture: what we were testing, why we were testing it, or what we were looking for. None of it ever made sense to me. I couldn’t see the forest or the trees (seven years later and I still don’t know what a titration is).
Now my wife, she was a different story. Chemistry labs were a breeze for her. She even liked organic chemistry (ask your doctor, he probably got a C+ in organic chemistry).
Solomon? He was more like my wife.
When he conducted an experiment he knew EXACTLY what he was doing.
When he says he denied himself nothing his eyes desired and refused his heart no pleasure, he meant it.
He conducted an experiment to see if he could find fulfillment under the sun, to see if he could find pleasure and happiness from the things of this world. And what an experiment it was – Solomon had over 1,000 wives and concubines!
And what did it bring him? Joy? Satisfaction? That warm and fuzzy feeling deep down inside? Far from it. He says in chasing vain pleasures, he felt as though he were actually chasing the wind. In giving himself everything there was to give, he had actually gained nothing.
So, what are we to desire? What pleasure should our hearts seek?
3 Trust in the LORD and do good;
dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
4 Delight yourself in the LORD
and he will give you the desires of your heart.
5 Commit your way to the LORD;
trust in him and he will do this:
6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn,
the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.
- Psalm 37: 3-6
