“Give us this day our daily faith, but deliver us from beliefs” Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
In his book, Future of Faith, Harvard religion scholar, Harvey Cox sets out what he sees as the direction of our changing Spiritual Climate.
For more information on what this post and Theology Thursdays are about, click here. Otherwise, continue reading…
Though some predict “science, literacy, and more education” to be its imminent demise, Cox argues that religion is resurging (1). Nevertheless, he believes, fundamentalist movements are dying:
“Fundamentalisms, with their insistence on obligatory belief systems, their nostalgia for a mythical uncorrupted past, their claims to an exclusive grasp on truth, and — sometimes – their propensity for violence, are turning out to be reargarud attempts to stem a more sweeping tidal change” (2).
When it seems its only the Fundamentalists who make it to our TV screen and blog feeds these days, this is a provacative statement.
I will cover Cox tackling fundamentalism on a future Theology Thursday entry, as he does in a later chapter.
Essential to the direction of the future of Faith, the professor explains, is the distinction between Faith and Belief.
There are some that may say he’s splitting hairs with his definition, but this distinction lays the foundation for understanding the rest of the book. In his words: “We can believe something to be true without it making much difference to us, but we place our faith only in something that is vital for the way we live” (3).
Harvey goes on to propose that in the midst of the transformational shift of emphasis between belief and faith, a new era is ushering itself in.
The Age of the Spirit, he suggests, is here. Dividing Christian History into three broad eras, the author cites the “increasing numbers of people who might once have described themselves as ‘religious’ … now refer[ring] to themselves as ’spiritual’” as being one indication of the Age of the Spirit (10).
His point? We’re moving away from, what he calls, The Age of Belief.
Synonymous with the the reign of Constantine, The Age of Belief began when Christianity became an imperial institution instead of a small network of faith-driven communities. Though he declines to write this whole era off as the Dark Ages, he asserts that from the doctrine and indoctrination of structured belief systems formed by man came the idea of papal infallibility and the fuel for the Spanish Inquisition (7).
Though I appreciate his reluctance to be entirely fatalistic with this middle era of the Christian story, I am in agreement with his nod toward the Dark Ages of our faith. At the offset, in what Cox refers to as The Age of Faith, the earliest followers were not people of rigorous beliefs, but people who cleft to the hope Jesus had given then, and lived in the example he set.
In short, “to be a Christian meant to live in his Spirit” (5). It wasn’t a check list of rites or a reciting of a prayer that would get you into the club. For three hundred years, the people of Christ lived harmoniously, committed to one mind, free of violence, and in a community that met the needs of all around (See: Acts 2:42-45)
That changed, however, when Emperor Constantine commandeered Christianity. Through imperializing the Faith, precepts became creeds and heresy became treason (5-6).
But creeds, or clusters of beliefs, never settle anything finally. Five hundred years prior to Christ, Plato wrestled with belief in the existence of God as it is still wrestled with today. Statement of Beliefs, though begging, don’t lead to decisive conclusion. “But faith,” Cox reasons, “which is more closely related to awe, love, and wonder, arose long before Plato, among our most primitive Homo sapien forebears” (4).
Maybe it is a primal instinct, but belief doesn’t interest me like faith does. I am not drawn to statements and creeds, but I am filled with fascination in “awe, love, and wonder.”
Harvey Cox’s proposal, or rather, reminder that there is more to the Christian story than doctrine is a welcomed one. I fully believe (or is it I have faith to say?) God is bigger than our doctrine.
Because…
“the history of Christianity is not a history of creeds. It is the story of a people of faith who sometimes cobbled together creeds out of beliefs. It is also the history of equally faithful people who questioned, altered, and discarded those same creeds… Making [belief and creed] the defining element warps the underlying reality of faith” (4).
So, in this, I agree with Harvey Cox’s bold proposal. The Future of Faith is one that will downplay belief in the hope to gain ground on Faith and reliance on the common Spirit over the binding to creeds constructed in our dark past.
Over the next few weeks, I hope to further explicate the Future of Faith, as reasoned in this book. This isn’t a lecture hall, neither is it a book itself. This is a blog with a comment box for us to use. Let’s. I want to hear your thoughts on this, and to those who have read the book and are a part of the blog tour, I’d love for you to join the conversation here too.
Opening the Conversation…
- What do you think?
- Is there a difference in your mind between Faith & Belief?
- Are we witnessing the dying of Fundamentalism?
- Is Religion on a resurgence at all?
I’d love to know your thoughts 
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Ah, juicy — always been a bit nervous of philosophers though, especially as they have to base their world-view on SOMETHING.
A lot of philosophers believe(d) in God. A lot of what they write is based on the fact that God does indeed exist. Problem with that is… what if he doesn’t exist?
But fair enough, there are philosophers that presuppose that God doesn’t exist — there is some balance to be found there, if you read a few books from opposing camps.
I think you’re right that we’re moving away from enforced belief. I guess it wouldn’t surprise you that I think technology is to blame/thank. Pretty sure monotheism popped up as a control method — almost certain that ‘original Christianity’ was pretty paganistic — God wasn’t singular to begin with, as we know… he was the God of the Israelites first and became omnipotent/present sometime after, probably as part of the control structure.
I do wonder why, in this new age of ‘non-enforced belief’ that it’s God/Christianity that is ‘pushed’. It surely doesn’t matter who or what we derive our faith from — there were religions before Christianity, and there have been religions since… is faith in one better than another? I doubt it.
I agree that philosophy (on either side of the coin) should start at a neutral “is there/isn’t there?” stance when it comes to questions of God. For this book, Cox works in the assumption of the Christian lineage, essentially because that is his target audience. He lays that out clearly in the beginning, which I appreciate.
As far as that debate go, I subscribe (mostly) to Aquinas’ reasoning for the “First Cause” (likened to Aristotle’s “Prime Mover”) in why I work from the assumption of God. It’s true that that doesn’t equate (necessarily) to the Judeo-Christian model, but that’s the one that tends to rub my theological mind the right way. Much of this, I admit as Cox did in the beginning of his book, is because of the place I was born: white, middle-class Christian Family in modern America.
I think you’re right-on with your thoughts re: Belief=Control. Though Christianity wasn’t the exclusive imperial religion, after Constantine’s decree and the Nicene creeds, Christian Belief claimed the lives of the first heretics. (”Damn all them who use their thinking mind to oppose the authority!”)
Interesting, concerning your last remark, Cox mentions in his book that after a lifetime of studying different religions, he would never say all are equal or after the same thing. He moves away from the subject swiftly, as his book isn’t about that, but he does state the case that not all paths are as in-line as they first look.
Example: I heard last night from a sex-trade activist who visits Thailand regularly that the girls in Buddhist cultures are told they come back as women because in their past life they didn’t live good enough to be a man. She made an off-the-cuff remark that took me by surprise: “In the West, we romanticize religions without realizing the cultural impact they have.” I tend to be a sympathizer of Buddhism, but at once saw her point.
That’s certainly not to say Fundamental Christianity hasn’t put undue weight on some shoulders… I just think there is a right way of going about things, and it is attainable.
Thanks for the input!
Juicy is right. Maybe because I read (partly) God is Back (ok, not really, but enough to get the general thesis of the book..), and because I like to read somewhat new-agey spiritual books, I agree with you. I’d even take it a step further (again, based on the type of books I read + my general feeling) that I believe faith will become more tolerant. Not “one religion” of the world necessarily, like the Baha’i faith would think, but just a greater tolerance and coexistence! I don’t think it has to be predominantly “Christian”.. But I think our concept of God will start to merge as more people will agree that it doesn’t matter what we ‘believe’, but that our faith somehow points to the same source. Or maybe I’m just talking out of my ass. Hey, I said it was juicy.
those last two statements were pretty visual (lol)
I have to wonder what “De-emphasizing Beliefs” will look like. I do think coexisting will be part of it, though I share your reservation of a one-world religion. I’m also skeptical of fad religions. I think older religions have some clout for having stood the test of time. Though I appreciate movements in Christianity that are seeking Early Church actions and mindsets.