At first blush, asking how faith in Jesus is done might seem like an odd question to ask. Grammatically, it’s kind of odd. But it’s also odd because we often focus on what believers believe. How believers believe is usually of little concern. So, much energy is spent parsing out the differences between what this group believes versus what that group believes, what Catholics believe versus what Protestants believe or what conservative evangelicals believe versus what mainliners believe or what emergent followers of Christ believe versus what non-emergents believe and so on. Asking how faith in Jesus is done, as I’m asking in this essay, draws our attention away from the content of our beliefs and pulls it toward the different ways believers follow Jesus. The shift from what to how is analogous to the shift from content to form.
Recently, Tony Jones, a well known member and coordinator for Emergent Village, interviewed John Chisham, a pastor, evangelist and critic of Tony Jones and the emergent phenomenon in general. The interview transcripts and a video are available here.
For me, face to face transactions like the one between Tony and John are fascinating, as they illuminate well the contours of contending understandings of how Christian faith is storied and lived. In other words, seeing how these two men story their belief is like seeing two forms of Christianity taking shape.
Apart from the different content, both men story their faith differently. They give form to, or enact, two ways of living faith in Jesus:
| 1. Faith as ongoing event. | 2. Faith as settled foundation. |
For Tony, believing takes the form of an ongoing practice, or process, where faith and doubt are complexly interwoven. How faith is lived is a matter of struggling daily with doubt, uncertainty and the lack of a solid, certain foundation. Being “born again” is an intentional, daily event.
For John, believing takes the shape of a binary condition where faith and doubt sit diametrically opposed to one another. How faith is lived is a matter of keeping doubt at bay and maintaining a solid, certain foundation on which to stand. Being “born again” was a one time event that established a settled foundation.
In the interview, the different ways of believing illustratively play out around the question of “who is Jesus,” as John phrases it.
Toward the question of Jesus’ identity, John wants to “nail that down.” That is to say, John is pushing to eliminate any possibility of slippage, uncertainty, doubt or question as to “who is Jesus.” As John puts it, “we have to see Jesus in truth.”
Tony, however, is moving toward a different trajectory. Against the drive by John to nail Jesus’ identity down, Tony repeatedly refers to the Bible as the answer to questions concerning statements of faith. In other words, Tony directs John’s drive for specificity toward the abundant possibilities opened up by the Scriptures. Tony has not seen Jesus, yet he continues to trust Jesus even as he doubts and questions.
How do you do faith in Jesus?
Jones, Chisham, Jesus and God
The video has been taken down. Apparently Tony Jones had not given permission for it to be used. But the transcript is still available.
It was a bit disappointing to see the debate focus so much on matters of personal faith and to deal with the issues of biblical interpretation almost exclusively within that framework. I feel much more comfortable with Tony Jones’ stance than with John Chisham’s, but I still think that in this interview he is arguing within a very narrow agenda, one set by modern evangelicalism: is personal faith something that can be ‘nailed down’ or can we loosen up a bit?
My concern is that he does not do a much better job of taking context into account than Chisham does - either the narrative and argumentative context of the biblical texts or the historical context in which we are currently struggling to think differently. I wonder if he really had to let Chisham set the terms of the debate.
So although I agree that the debate illuminates ‘the contours of contending understandings of how Christian faith is storied and lived’, my feeling was that Jones could have done a much better job of bringing the different stories that define an emerging theology into view. Maybe that’s expecting too much from the interview. I’ve just got a copy of Jones’ The New Christians. I’m hoping that it will offer a broader perspective.
Your post, however, also raises a question that has been bugging me a bit about Alan Hirsch’s thesis (see also here). What difference does it make if we speak of doing faith in Jesus rather than doing faith in God?
Re: Jones, Chisham, Jesus and God
What difference does it make if we speak of doing faith in Jesus rather than doing faith in God?
It’s funny, I’ve thought about this very point.
Jesus never prayed to himself. Jesus prayed to God. Most Christians pray to Jesus. But to follow in the way of Jesus, suggests that we should pray to God.
In some ways, praying “in Jesus’ name” is a colloquial phrasing for some folks. The name “God” is more general. In my view, it’s like the difference between vernacular and grammar.
In terms of your comments about the conversation taking place “within a very narrow agenda, one set by modern evangelicalism.” I think you’re right on target. I would add that a conversation can only go where it’s narrators take it and if (at least) one narrator is firmly rooted in modern evangelicalism, the conversation is pretty much going to hover around that formulation. It would take at least two narrators able to articulate post-modern stories of faith to shift it out of that familiar mold.