Believe, believe, and believe

Happy 100th post!

It seems to me that Christians and scientists both become very upset around the word "believe." Here are three possible meanings that word can have:

1. "Do you believe in evolution?" In this question (presumably posed by a creationist), "believe in XYZ" means something like, "to think think idea XYZ is true." But the scientist's answer to this question is always, "No," because that's not what a scientist means when (s)he uses the word "believe." Because the scientist (typically) considers that the theoretical, observational, & experimental research that has gone into developing, confirming, and refining the evolutionary model has been sufficiently rigorous to justifiably warrant (nay, necessitate) a certainty in the model. Belief is not necessary, the scientist says (perhaps in a scoffing tone), because of sufficient supporting evidence.

2. "Do you believe in God?" In this question (presumably posed by a scientist), "believe in XYZ" means something like, "to hold idea XYZ to be true, regardless of a lack of evidence." A Christian would technically answer this question with, "yes," but this is not what Christians mean when they say they "believe in God"---or, if they're feeling specific---when they say they "have faith in God." To paraphrase James's warning, "You believe there is one God. Good for you! Of course, even the demons believe and tremble, and that faith does them no good!" Believing that God exists, Christianity says (perhaps in a chilling tone), gets you nowhere.

3. "Do you believe God?" I am eternally thankful to a good friend from summer project (hosted by what was then known as Campus Crusade for Christ) for pointing out this distinction. When Christians (usually) say that they believe in God, they mean that they "believe God"---"trust God." Far from "belief" in evolution (which is no belief at all), and from ascent to God's existence (which even the Father of Lies admits), Christian belief is an orientation of the heart, mind, and will. Christian belief is "banking our hopes" (thanks to John Piper for that one) on all that Jesus is and all that He has done for us. Trusting God, Christianity says (definitely in a hopeful and eager tone), changes everything.

So, how can we (Christians, scientists, those in the intersection of those sets, and those not in either set) be more careful with the concept of belief?

The Terminology of Talking About Humans

In teaching The Parables of Matthew last Fall, I ran into an interesting question while discussing the two parables found in verses 44-46 of Chapter 13:

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.

The question comes from the two possible interpretations of these parables.

One interpretation (the standard interpretation) is that the searcher in these verses is Jesus' followers and that the treasure/pearl is Himself. This makes sense, given the suffering that the disciples were beginning to encounter (thereby "selling all that they had).

The second interpretation is that the searcher is Jesus and that the treasure/pearl is His people. This interpretation also makes sense, given that the rest of the parables in Matthew 13 feature Jesus as the active party and His people as the passive recipients.

(Of course, there's no reason they can't both be correct, and one astute member of the class---thanks, John!---noted that, given the wording that follows, "The kingdom of heaven is like," in each parable, one could argue that the first interpretation is true of the first parable, and that the second interpretation is true of the second parable!)

I'll admit, that second interpretation is attractive to me. I like reading about Jesus being the hero in a story, and I like envisioning the lengths to which He went/goes for His people.

But that interpretation does lead to an interesting question: What does it mean, in the second parable, for the pearl to be "of great value?"

Proponents of the first interpretation say that, because of our sin and His self-sufficiency, God has no need of us, and therefore doesn't view us as valuable; Jesus, after all, in John 17, clearly indicates that He is going to the cross because the glory of God & His relationship with the Father is so valuable to Him. One of the key points in the gospel, to them, is the emphasis of the centrality of God in the gospel, and the supremacy of grace and mercy. While these are invaluable points, these folks run the risk of devaluing humans (and sometimes appear quite cantankerous).

Proponents of the second interpretation say that of course humans have value to God because they are created in His image; Jesus, after all, in Matthew 6 assures His disciples not to worry because God considers them valuable. One of the key points in the gospel, to them, is to help other see how valuable they are in the scheme of things, and to inspire them to turn to God to live out their created & redemptive purposes. While these are also invaluable points, these folks run the risk of inflating the value of humans (and sometimes appear no different than the world's self-esteem gurus).

I'm not going to claim to answer this dilemma! However, I think it's important to note that these two camps seem to be attaching a different meaning to the word, "value."

When this debate emerged in my class, I asked the debaters to consider what they meant when they used the term, "value." Did they mean worth? significance? importance? worthiness? worthwhile-ness? loveliness? When we realized we were at a terminology impasse, the debate died down, and everyone seemed to have something new to think about.

I think it's important that we pursue a clear understanding of our terminology when we talk about human beings. We are, after all, finite beings somehow created in the image of God and one of the greatest paradoxes (a la Pascal) in the universe. No wonder it's very easy for our statements about ourselves to be misunderstood!

When have you run into this terminology problem? How can seeking a clear definition of your terms help you understand what truths the Bible claims about humanity? How can seeking a clear definition of your terms help you communicate those truths to others?