A recent Relief Society lesson was using the terms belief and faith interchangeably, which reminded me of a post I did a long time ago that I thought I would revisit.
Belief vs. Faith
Belief is defined as “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists” and also “trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.” Faith is defined as “complete trust or confidence in someone or something” or “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” They sound roughly the same, with faith just being more emphatic. And yet, I would say that we normally don’t consider these equivalent terms in how we use these terms within the church. Belief is what’s in our heads, our convictions, our assumptions. Faith implies willingness to act. This is why losing “faith” is so much of a concern. There’s an implication, perhaps based on our emphasis on James 1:5-6 that not having faith means you won’t follow the commandments, that you won’t act in accordance with Jesus’ teachings. We are an orthoprax people at heart.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
This is often interpreted to mean that if you ask “in faith” you will follow the answer you receive with your actions. If you don’t have the faith to act, you’ll be a flibberdegibbet, tossed around without any direction or purpose (again, implying actions). Faith, as the term is used in our church, is very strongly linked to our actions.
This is good because belief is conceptually blown out of the water by Johnathan Haidt’s fabulous explanation of the elephant and the rider that I’ve blogged about here. He equates our beliefs to an elephant. We are merely the rider. The elephant is really in charge.
The elephant goes where it wants to go, and the rider acts as a PR person, explaining where the elephant went. The rider isn’t really telling the elephant where to go and doesn’t in fact know why the elephant went where it did. Likewise, our emotions go where they go, and we are left to explain to ourselves, and occasionally to others, why they went there. To some extent, we can hear this in Fast & Testimony meeting as people explain why they believe. Likewise, in online discussion forums, we hear people’s exit narratives. The story matches the elephant’s movements. Let’s say the elephant flattened a village on its way. Well, the rider’s got a story for that. Or the elephant ends up at a water source. Or the other elephants are pushing the elephant in a direction. All of these are stories about why the elephant did what it did, but we really don’t know. We don’t control the elephant. We sometimes imagine we do, or that we understand it. Haidt would say that’s an illusion.
A Thought Experiment
Which is more important – belief or faith? Is conviction without action better than action without conviction? Is belief without action better than acting despite disbelief? Which leads to the better outcome or are both fraught with their own dangers?
To illustrate this line of thinking further, suppose for a moment that Tony Soprano has entered a very strange Witness Protection program. He is being relocated to Salt Lake City where he will be living as if he were a Mormon. He will be assigned to a local ward where he will be made the bishop of a local congregation for five years. He will need to attend to the temporal and spiritual needs of the ward while conducting his normal job as a business manager during the week. Tony has been trained very successfully by his FBI Handlers. He knows the lingo (words like “shadow of a doubt,” “every fiber of my being,” and “we’re grateful for the moisture we’ve received.”) He understands the requirements and standards (modesty/no more wife beaters, cutting down his considerable profanity, no porn, chastity and fidelity to his wife, honesty, etc.). While he knows it is a big departure from his previous life, he is confident he can live those standards. However, he is entering this arrangement with no belief whatsoever in the LDS church. He is purely going through the motions.
At the same time, because the FBI are apparently into weird social experimentation (or at least my example is), they will be sending Bishop Mike Young (whom Bishop Soprano will replace) back to run the Bada-Bing and manage Tony’s mafia affairs in his stead. Although Bishop Young is a believer in his LDS faith, this assignment will require him to play a part that contradicts his beliefs. He will be subject to all manner of temptations (dishonesty, murder, illicit sex–the constant barrage of profanity will be the least of his worries), and he will have to participate in these things or be killed by his new colleagues who will immediately smell a rat if he does not play the part.
So, who is in the more impossible situation? What is the likely outcome of each? Will Bishop Soprano become converted to the gospel through his newly clean lifestyle? Or will he corrupt the ward members because he doesn’t believe? Will Bishop Young become converted to the dark side by his new cronies? Or will Bishop Young infiltrate the mafia with his more charitable tendencies? What is the most likely outcome for each situation?
I’m inclined to think that Bishop Soprano is in a good position to become persuaded this new lifestyle is the way to go, whether that leads to a testimony or just a more Christ-like life. I tend to think Bishop Young is at peril of falling into sin, but that he will continue to feel bad about it and long for a future situation that will allow him to return to living his beliefs. In time, behavior trumps belief, not the other way around. That’s my theory anyway. Of course, theories are like beliefs. I can tell you why my elephant goes there, but I’m guessing.
Form Dictates Function?
We usually consider something efficient if the function dictates the form, but what if humans work the other way around?
I often think of an old episode of Star Trek, “By Any Other Name,” in which a crew from a doomed race assumes humanoid form to make the multi-generational journey to save their kind. Although their cultural preferences prior to taking human form were dictated by logic, efficiency, and conquering others, the Enterprise crew quickly exploits their lack of familiarity with the human experience, introducing them to the pleasures of eating, drinking and romance. The Kelvans begin to experience emotions like lust and jealousy that they haven’t felt before. As a result, the Kelvans lose control of their emotions and the captured crew escapes.
In this episode, their form dictates their experience, and their experience is what changes their beliefs and values. Because humans experience unseen motives like emotions, perceptions, sensory input, hormones, and so on, our form is functional. Our actions do create, even subconsciously, changes to our beliefs and assumptions and what is comfortable to us.
Which Comes First?
Considering a much less extreme example, which is harder to manage through? Believing in the church, but not living up to the standards (which often results in inactivity) or not believing in the church while going through the motions (activity, but without testimony)? I would place the hierarchy of belief/action combos like this:
- Easiest: Neither believing nor living the standards. Again, depends on how far down the “not living the standards” scale you go before you get to reduced quality of life. On some level, though, ignorance is bliss. Once you are aware of the standards, though, even if your belief level changes, unless it becomes disbelief, you will have difficulty with this choice.
- Next Easiest: Believing & living the standards. Obviously, all of us fall short at times, but belief causes people to want to live the standards, and living the standards reinforces belief. This helps people minimize guilt and stress.
- Getting More Difficult: Not believing, but living the standards. This is still a valuable choice because the standards can create a good life. This is the worst-case scenario in Pascal’s wager. And belief is not all or nothing anyway. One can believe in the value of standards that have a lifestyle benefit.
- Most Difficult: Believing but not living the standards. Since we all fall short from time to time, this seems like the next logical stop down in the hierarchy. Some just fail to meet on a bigger scale, but their belief is still there. They believe what they are doing is wrong. They feel guilt and shame.
Do behaviors reinforce lack of belief or does belief create our behaviors? Does lack of belief promote self-justification? Is faith a principle of action only (vs. one’s level of belief) in that it colors our actions?
Do you believe it’s possible to “choose” to belief or just to choose to act in faith despite doubt?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Do you believe it’s possible to “choose” to belief or just to choose to act in faith despite doubt?
Yes — it is possible to choose to believe. Yes — it is possible to choose to act in faith despite doubt.
Ah. The debate between Confucians and Taoists. The one believes right form will create right action. The other that right mind will create right action. In taking an upper division Chinese philosophy class, I concluded that you need both. They support each other, and seeking both supports both.
“This is often interpreted to mean that if you ask “in faith” you will follow the answer you receive with your actions. If you don’t have the faith to act, you’ll be a flibberdegibbet, tossed around without any direction or purpose (again, implying actions). Faith, as the term is used in our church, is very strongly linked to our actions.”
I think that’s true.
But it comes down to whether kids should:
(a) want to go to church first and thus learn to go to church or
(b) learn to go to church and thus learn to want to.
or …
(c) both.
BTW, I really liked this observation:
“To some extent, we can hear this in Fast & Testimony meeting as people explain why they believe. Likewise, in online discussion forums, we hear people’s exit narratives. The story matches the elephant’s movements.”
That is so very true.
I wonder if Tony might revert on occasion and “take care of things” and make sure that 100% home teaching was done every month. If he did that consistently I worry he might be then made a stake president. You see where this is going? Stuff close to that has taken off on a few missions over the decades.
I have been studying a bit about how our brains have an insatiable instinct to form a narrative/explain why things happen. It seems like our mind HAS to make some sense of the world even if it makes up the whole thing. We just have a hard time saying, “I have no idea why the elephant turned left instead of right.” We are unconsciously forced to make a story. I find it very interesting.
P.S. – I was DEEPLY touched by the caption of “This is the church.”
P.P.S. – Thanks for the new word of the day. I had to go look up “Frottage” (I hope it does not trigger my company’s internet filters and get me called into HR). Did this get used along with “petting and necking” back in the 1950’s? For kicks I recently looked up the latter two oft used phrases. I thought I knew what they were and I had not crossed over THAT line before marriage. Now that I looked them up, I did! Well maybe. I have to go study what “amorously” really means and think back a few decades and decide if my kissing and embracing was “amorous” or not.
But back to your main question. We can read, “Faith with our works is dead.” But that to me does not answer the question. I am sure some of WWII concentration camp prisoners had a strong belief that killing of their fellow prisoners was right, but they felt they could not act on those beliefs. Great food for thought. Probably more than my feeble mind can even grasp in the short time before I have to head off to the white collar coal mine.
(I’m going to replace Hawkgrrrl’s “faith” with “works” and her “belief” with “faith” because that is the way I find myself conceptualising the argument, even if its not a perfect fit)
Faith without works is dead, but is works without faith also dead? I think that is the essential question being asked. It is a good question, and very relevant to our day because more and more members are harbouring doubts about the truth claims of the church while still trying to remain active.
Liberal churches are full of non-believers who still find value in religious practice. But their numbers are dwindling. Conservative churches are full of strong believers who may not do much to live their faith, trusting their salvation to Jesus, and their numbers are growing stronger.
So churches that emphasise faith attract more members. You might say they are more spiritually dynamic. But churches that emphasise works over faith do a lot of good and that holds a lot of meaning for people.
At the end of the day, maybe every person is a bit different and finds their own balance between faith and works. Some people are motivated enough to do good works without faith. Indeed, they are distracted by having to have faith in some absurd dogmas. Abandoning faith for them is essential for them to continue to do good works.
But others need faith in order to retain motivation to do good works, building up treasures in heaven, avoiding hell, or just expecting spiritual and temporal blessings from their good works.
Perhaps both are equally valid, depending on the person.
@Nate – “every person is a bit different” Good point. I know some in the church that just LOVE going to the temple and could (and in older age do) almost live in the temple. Others have almost an opposite reaction – even if they are fully believing members.
I am struggling as I hold 3 callings and help with other ward events, but I want so much to do work outside of the walls of the church in what I feel is directly helping people that are suffering today at this moment. One group I want to do some significant volunteering with does work on Sunday. Outside the church nobody even gets when I say why I am conflicted and have peer pressure not to do this. They think sitting in a church is easy, so why is giving selfless charity a real no-no compared to church?
Maybe we need to give each other a break when they don’t see our most important things as their important things.
“Faith without works is dead, but is works without faith also dead? I think that is the essential question being asked.” Yes, this is exactly the gist of the post. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.
I think I’m in the works create faith vs. faith creates work camp, but that doesn’t mean that’s where everyone has to be. It’s just my way. There’s something to be said for the contemplative space in which we do charitable works. In those quiet moments, we can comprehend things we would otherwise never consider. Or so I find.
In Patrick Mason’s book _Planted_ is a similar argument that the good works members do in the church is a good enough reason for many members to remain, even if the faith is lacking. He distinguishes it between the church being “true” (reason for faith) and the church being “good” (reason to live the practices).
I would also add the need to strive with and serve each other as a good at church.
“Do you believe it’s possible to “choose” to belief or just to choose to act in faith despite doubt?”
Well, of course none of us are able to totally reverse our deepest convictions on the fly…. That said, we make dozens of choices everyday which serve to cultivate or erode our faith. If we only expose ourselves to secular literature, teachers and social influences, it shouldn’t come as a shock when we become convinced that “the church left me” or some such nonsense or some other rhetorical refusal to own up to and take responsibility for such decisions.
Indeed, the whole point of asking people to have convictions that run deep within them is so that they cannot merely flip or flop as the mood suits them. In this sense, conscious control of our convictions is a bad, even immoral thing, contrary to what so many try to tell us.
This is a great post. The greatest indicator of religious belief is the religious beliefs of one’s parents. I think that says something about the degree of choice we have in our beliefs. If we are in a culture or society where belief in something is viewed as a virtue, we will see belief framed as a choice so the believers get credit for being virtuous and the non-believers get condemned for choosing evil.
I am fascinated by what causes one’s beliefs to change over time. Some people describe an epiphany, others a gradual shift. There is often an emotional component opening up a new possibility, followed by a logical re-examination of the evidence. We want to believe that we chose our new path, but maybe the subconscious elephant just took us in a different direction. I agree with Jeff G. that decisions we make about the literature we read, the people we interact with, etc., will over time affect our beliefs. So maybe in that sense action drives belief, and works lead to faith.
I’m not sure about believing without living the standards being the most difficult state. That is essentially the Jack Mormon category, not to mention the many active or semi-active members who don’t pay tithing or have temple recommends or callings. It seems to be pretty easy to believe in something, recognize that you’re not living up to the standards of that belief, but then reconcile the dissonance by ascribing it to your own personal weakness or an intention to straighten up once you get married, have kids, graduate, etc. I’d swap 3 and 4.