This is a very special day in the life of the Church. Pentecost Sunday. We celebrate it as the birthday of the Church. You may not be aware that Pentecost was actually a Jewish festival called Shavuot. It is celebrated as a commemoration of the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai , or the birthday of the Covenant between God and Israel .

For Christians it is the commemoration of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the initiation of the world-wide mission of outreach that developed into the Christian Church. The earliest Christians understood and confessed that what empowered this movement was the Holy Spirit, working in them through the Gospel of Jesus, and creating the faith that became the energy of this mission. And it is faith that still energizes the lives and actions of the people of God.

So the noun "faith", and the verb "believe", are very important terms in Christianity. The problem is that those terms can be understood in different ways and have been in the history of Christianity. Beginning this Sunday, I would like to preach a series of three sermons on faith and belief as they are used in the Bible and have been used in the history of the Church. I will do so on the basis of four Latin terms, all of which can be translated as faith, but each of which highlights a different facet or aspect of faith. There are: Faith as assensus; Faith as fidelitas; Faith as fiducia; and Faith as visio. Today then:

FAITH AS ASSENSUS

The basic meaning of faith as assent is "to give one's assent to a statement or proposition." The opposite of assent is doubt or disbelief. "I believe the earth is round." "I doubt that the earth is flat." Faith as assent is a relatively recent and quite modem concept. It was known in the ancient world, but used very rarely. The Epistle of James says that faith as assent is not saving faith. The one biblical book that does use faith as assent is-anyone want to guess?--the Gospel of John.

Understanding faith as assent has been the dominant understanding in the Christian world since the Enlightenment, and especially since the Reformation. It has been more of a Protestant than Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox phenomenon. It was in the Protestant Reformation that "WHAT" one believes or affirms became so important. And note that the consequence of that has been endless subdivisions and splintering of Protestant Christianity on the basis of doctrinal differences. And it's still happening today.

Unfortunately, the post-Enlightenment world has identified "truth" with "factuality", a very modem notion. When I teach courses on the Bible I remind my classes that when you read a Biblical section the first question you ask is not, "Did this really happen?". That should be the last question, if you ask it at all. What kind of writing is this? From what century? Who is speaking or writing? Who is the audience? What is the historical or cultural situation? What is the literary context? What does the author want to say about the situation of the audience. There can be truth that is not factual. I don't believe the Genesis Creation stories are factual, but I believe they proclaim a truth about God's Will and Work of creation.. I don't believe the Jonah story is factual, but I believe that story teaches a profound truth about forgiveness and the wonderful grace of God. I don't believe the story of Jesus turning water into wine is factual, but I believe it proclaims an important truth. Philo had said, "When the Messiah comes, he will turn water into wine." So if John's community wanted to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, telling that story was the natural way to do that.

And here is a very modem example of what I am talking about:

The Columbine story:

Despite questions, Columbine ‘yes’ stirs faithful

( Lexington Herald-Leader, Saturday, Jan. 1, 2000 )

            By Solomon Banda, Associated Press

            Littleton , Colo – The Story of Cassie Bernall professing her belief in God shortly before she was killed at Columbine High School was the defining moment that led Sara Evans to her faith.

            “After we attended a memorial service (for the Columbine victims), I turned my life around,” said Sara, 13, a volunteer at Trinity Christian Center , where funerals were held for four of the 13 victims,

            Heather Johnson, 13, another volunteer, said the affirmation is an inspiritation. “It makes me want to strive to live better,” she said. “I’d want to have enough strength to say ‘yes’ for God.”

            Witnesses said Cassie, 17, closed her eyes and clasped her hands in prayer when one of the gunmen pointed a shotgun at her and asked whether she believed in God.

            Yes, she said – and he killed her.

            The story turned the girl into a martyr, who had found God after falling in with the wrong crowd, dabbling in the occult and experimenting with drugs.

            But eight months after the April 20 shooting attack, the picture has become muddied. Authoritites now say it was survivor Valeen Schnurr who professed her belief to gunmen Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. A similar story has also emerged about Rachel Scott, who died.

            Among Christians, however, some say the question is irrelevant.

            “It doesn’t matter who said it or if  no one said it,” Sara said. “But if people believe in God, that’s what’s important.”

            Doug Clark, director of field ministries of San Diego-based National Network of Youth Ministries, said he encourages other students to follow the teens’ example of boldness.

            “Mincing words over what was said in the library is a minor part,” Clark said. “The greater part is how they lived their lives, and it’s not going to change anything.”

            Religious experts said attempts to clarify the confusion surrounding the stories of Christian faith actually could help embed the story in religious circles.

            “This rethinking can be chalked up to media scrutiny, which I think the faithful would dismiss as a cynical attempt to debunk the story,” said Randall Balmer, professor of American religious studies at Barnard College . “In some ways, it may make the faithful dig in a little bit deeper and resist those attempts.”

            Jefferson County sheriff’s spokesman Steve Davis said the story shifted because witnesses were confused and terrified.

            Rachel Scott was shot outside the school; Cassie Bernall and Valeen Schnurr were in the second floor library when the gunmen stormed in and opened fire. In all, 12 students and a teacher were killed. The teenage gunmen also killed themselves.

            Valeen said she was blown out from underneath a table by a shotgun blast. “Oh my God, oh my God, don’t let me die,” she remembered saying. One of the gunmen asked her whether she believed in God and she answered “yes,” crawling away as he reloaded. Valeen suffered 34 wounds, but has recovered to go on to college.

            As part of his ministry, Columbine Redemption, Darrell Scott, father of Rachel, told a story of his daughter professing her faith shortly before dying. But he stopped when one witness later said he could not remember what happened.

            Plough Publishing Co. also discussed conflicted accounts from witnesses in its book She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie Bernall, written by her mother, Misty Bernall.

            “Had we known how big the controversy would become, I’m sure we would have given it more space,” said editor Chris Zimmerman.

            A more detailed picture of Harris and Klebold emerged last month when Time magazine published a story on videotapes the two made before the shootings. Among other things, the tapes captured their disdain for Christians.

            “What would Jesus do?” Klebold said, mocking a phrase popular among religious youth. He made a face at the camera and then yelled, “What would I do? Booosh!” as he mimicked a shotgun blast at the camera.

            Regardless of who affirmed their faith to the Columbine gunmen, clergymen say stories of Christians professing their faith shortly before being killed have helped explain the massacre for many.

            “Did it happen for a reason?” asked Clark. “For those who have had contact with God in their lives, it has happened for a reason.”

There is, however, a proper role in Christian faith and life for faith as assent. Christians do and must make certain truth claims. I assent to the reality of God. I believe that there is more to reality than material existence. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the distinctive embodiment of the will and character of God. I believe that the Bible is absolutely normative for Christian identity. I believe that the Bible is sacramental, it mediates the sacred.

But faith as assent has its limitations and shortcomings. Faith as assent is not really relational. Believing that certain propositions about God are true does not establish a relationship with God. And believing certain propositions as true does not, in itself, transform anyone's life. James says to his audience, "So you believe God is real? So do the demons." To paraphrase James, "Assent without works is dead."

On the next two weekends I will explore three other facets of faith. Let me finish today with a quick etymology of the words, "I believe." These words are the English translation of the Latin word "credo." Credo is a combination of two Latin words: cor, which means "heart," and do, which means "give." So literally, "I believe" means "I give my heart to." Until the 17^th century "to believe" meant "to hold dear", "to prize", "to commit oneself to." The Middle English word was "beleve" which was another form of "belove." I believe that the contemporary Church needs to recover that ancient sense of believe as "to give one's heart to."

May I please suggest that on this Pentecost Sunday, as we celebrate the birthday of the Church, we take one little step toward the recovery of that ancient sense of "I believe" in the way we recite the Creed today. Instead of "we believe in" let's say "we give our hearts to." What a wonderful way that would be to celebrate Pentecost. Amen.

ASPECTS OF FAITH-PART II
THE SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
June 15, 2003
Richard A. Osing

Last Sunday I began a series of three homilies on faith and belief. The purpose of this series is to explain the different senses in which the words "faith "and "belief' have been used in the Bible and in the Christian Tradition. What I neglected to say last week is that the idea and the basic format for this series comes from notes I took at a lecture by Marcus Borg in March of this year. It was he who suggested studying faith on the basis of four Latin terms that come from the Christian Tradition. Faith as assensus; faith as fidelitas; faith as fiducia; and faith as visio.

Last Sunday I presented faith understood as giving one's assent to certain propositions, doctrines or truth claims. I suggested that this has become the dominant understanding of faith since the Enlightenment and Reformation. And, while I agree that being a Christian certainly involves assenting to certain claims of truth, I also insist that the terms "faith" and "belief' have other nuances of meaning that are neglected if we think of faith only as assensus.

Finally, then, I shared the etymology of the Latin word credo, which is translated as "I believe." That verb comes from two Latin words, cor, which means "heart" and do, which means "give." So the etymology tells us that the literal meaning of "I believe" is "I give my heart to," and we actually substituted the etymological expression for the regular "I believe" when we recited the Creed.

Today, then, I take up: FAITH AS FIDELITAS

The basic meaning of fidelitas is fidelity or faithfulness. The opposite, of course, is infidelity or unfaithfulness. In the Old Testament faithfulness is most often ascribed to God in God's dealings with Israel and Israel is frequently accused of infidelity in its relationship with God. Israel 's infidelity is most often called idolatry, and even adultery. Jesus was using that expression when he referred to his contemporaries as "an evil and adulterous generation." The notion of infidelity is the major metaphor of the 8^th century BCE prophets like Hosea, Amos, Micah and Isaiah and even the 6^th century BCE prophet Jeremiah. In Hosea, in fact, it is the dominant theme.

You will recall that Hosea is called by God to marry a temple prostitute and father children by her. Hosea, in other words, was called to create a relationship that embodied the infidelity of Israel in its relationship with Yahweh. Hosea's treatment of his unfaithful wife [which included both discipline and forgiveness] and his enduring love for her became models of God's discipline and redemptive love for unfaithful Israel .

Listen to this beautiful statement that God speaks to Israel immediately after he has detailed how he will punish the nation. God's relationship with Israel will not end in unfaithfulness and punishment:

"I will bring you into the wilderness and court you. I will whisper tender words in your ear. I will take you as my wife forever. I will take you for my wife in righteousness and justice, in enduring love and mercy. I will

take you for my wife in faithfulness and we will be intimate with one another, says the Lord."

We noted last week that faith as assent is not relational. Faith as fidelitas, by contrast presumes a relationship. The fidelity is a personal fidelity in a relationship with God, not to some propositions about God.

This concept of faith is also transformative. Relationships have the power to change people, to transform those who are in a relationship. I believe that the best line I have ever heard in a movie was the one Jack Nicholson said to Helen Hunt in the move, "As Good As It Gets." Jack says, "You make me want to be a better man." That's the transformative power of relationships. It happens between friends, between parents and children, counselors and clients, coaches and their players. I watched on TV just the other day the story about a Dad's Support Group, a program to keep fathers in close relationships with their children after alienation from the mothers. One father after another testified to how having a relationship with his son or daughter had changed him as a person.

And that same transformative power is active in Christians in their relationships with God. Fidelity in relationship with God means centering one's life in that relationship. It means making that relationship the most important value in one's life. One cannot help but hear echoes of that first commandment: THERE WILL BE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. No other values, no other priorities above our relationship with God. That's what faith as fidelity is all about.

The Biblical term "righteousness" is, in fact, related to this concept of fidelity. One is said to be righteous when one lives into the responsibilities of a covenant relationship. Israel 's poets and prophets call God "righteous" because lives up to God's covenant responsibilities. Israel is "righteous" when Israel lives into its covenant responsibilities. And Israel is accused of lacking "righteousness" when it fails to fulfill its covenant responsibility of creating communities of justice and compassion.

We have begun the Pentecost season, a season of the Church Year when we emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit helps us "grow in faith." Today we can understand that as empowering us to grow in fidelity to God, deepening our relationship with God, centering our lives more on God. That kind of growth, however, does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in community. I have always disliked the expression "having a personal relationship with God" as though this is something personal and private. It is as we read the Bible together, worship together, feast at the Eucharist together that Christian growth happens. I spend a lot of time studying and reading alone, but I have experienced that my growing in faith does not happen unless I share what I am studying. What I learn privately may be exciting, but it does not become fully exciting until I share it with someone. There is a small group of folks who gather with me on Wednesday morning. We celebrate the Eucharist together and then spend some time studying a topic or, most often, the Lessons for the coming Sunday. And what do we notice? We notice that not only does our relationship with God come more alive, but so does our relationship with one another.

Once again, to reflect the aspect of faith as fidelity in relationship, let us again this Sunday recite the Creed with "We give our hearts to" instead of "I believe in." Amen.

ASPECTS OF FAITH-PART III
THE SECOND SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
JUNE 22, 2003
Richard A. Osing

This is the third and last homily in a series of homilies on the subject of faith and belief. Once again, I am indebted to Marcus Borg for the original idea and outline. I have been talking about the different aspects of faith on the basis of four Latin terms: faith as assensus, or assent; faith as fidelitas, or fidelity; faith as f ducia, or trust; and faith as visio, or a way of seeing. Today I turn to the last two: faith as fiducia and visio.

The basic meaning of fiducia is "trust." It is the Latin basis for the English word "fiduciary." As a noun the Dictionary defines a fiduciary as a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit or protection of another. The Department at the Bank that handles financial matters for another is called the Trust Department. Fiduciary may also be an adjective as in "a fiduciary relationship." The relationship between an attorney and client is a fiduciary relationship, and so is the relationship between counselor and client, or between priest and member of the congregation. A fiduciary, then, is one who can be trusted.

Today I am more interested in the theological meaning of fiducia, however, than the legal sense. Trust is the dominant meaning of faith in the Bible, and particularly in the words of Jesus and writings of Paul. When Jesus says to someone he has healed, "Your faith has saved you, go in peace", he means "your trust in the power of God made available through me" has healed you. When Jesus says of the Syro-Phoenecian woman, "I have not seen such faith in Israel ", again he is saying he has not seen such radical trust. I believe, in fact, that the way Jesus lived his life was a model of that radical trust in God's care.

For Jesus, the opposite of trust is anxiety or worry. But let me be clear here. Don't confuse the anxiety that Jesus is talking about with a brain chemistry disorder called anxiety. The latter is caused by the lack of a neurotransmitter in the brain called serotonin, not by a lack of faith. In fact, it is insensitive and cruel to tell people with that brain chemistry disorder that they need to have a stronger faith. Faith may be able to move mountains, but it cannot produce serotonin.

Jesus was talking about the kind of anxiety, worry, or fear that the disciples had in the gospel lesson today. "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?" The last question would be better translated, "Don't you trust me yet?" Or from the sermon on the Mt. Jesus says, "Don't worry about your life, what you will eat or about your body, what you will wear." His point was, "Trust God who sees to it that the birds have food even though they don't plant or harvest." "Trust God who clothes the flowers of the field with a splendor greater than Solomon. And sometimes, with Jesus, one has to read between the lines. When he says to the wealthy man who wants to follow him that he should sell all his property, give the money to the poor and come be a disciple, he is implicitly saying. "Follow me and trust God to take care of you."

When Paul says to the Romans that the "Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith", he means "everyone who places their trust in God. Or when he says that the righteous person is one who lives by faith, he means that the way to live in relationship with God is to trust God.

When Peter says to Cornelius the Centurion in Acts, `Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", he means, "Trust Jesus and what Jesus says about God and you will be saved." Saving faith is simply that total, absolute, and radical trust in God. So faith as trust is relational. To use an expression I introduced two weeks ago, it is a matter of giving one's heart to. You can only give your heart to someone you trust.

This aspect of faith is also transformative. As I grow in my trust of God my life is transformed. One has only to look at how the lives of the disciples were transformed from lives of fear and anxiety to lives of courage and trust. Most of them ended up losing their lives as a consequence of their trust in God. And I suspect the same thing has happened to you or to someone you know well. Learning to give one's heart completely over to God changes people for the better.

Closely related to faith as trust is faith as visio, faith as a way of seeing. The two are closely related. Trusting in God, we learn to see the world and all of life in a new way. And how we see the world and life influences how we respond to the world and to life. Some, for example, see the world as hostile, and they respond by spending a lot of time and energy building systems of defense. They don't let people get too close. They don't trust many people. They are chronically suspicious of the motives of others and think that most people are out to get them in one way or another.

Still others see the world and life as without any meaning or significance. They respond in one of two ways. They either life in a state of despair or they cram their lives full of as much excitement, pleasure and stimulation as possible. They often slip into alcohol and drug addiction. They live self-centered lives and have little time for others.

Others, and these are those who learn to trust, see the world and life as mostly gracious, nurturing and life-giving. They respond to life with gratitude and thankfulness. They are much less preoccupied with themselves and able to give to others. They trust the natural process of life because they trust that God is behind and in those processes. Faith as a way of seeing is dominant in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author lists the heroes of faith one after another from Abel to Abraham to Moses and on. These heroes, says the author, did not experience the fulfillment of all God's promises, but they lived as though they saw that complete fulfillment in the future. They "saw" the promises of God as sustaining their lives. Note finally, that this aspect of faith is both relational and transformative, as expressed in the hymn "Amazing Grace", "was blind but now I see."

SOME CONCLUSIONS:

1. Throughout the Bible and Christian history until the Enlightenment faith has been relational more than intellectual and propositional. The dominant meaning has been faith as trust in God.

2. Faith, therefore, has more to do with living in a trusting relationship with God than assenting to certain truth claims about God, or about Jesus.

AN ASSUMPTION: YOU CANNOT GIVE YOUR HEART TO SOMETHING YOUR MIND REJECTS

I listened to Dr. Bob Jones of Bob Jones University several days ago. He was a guest on Larry King's show. Larry reacted to some of Dr. Jones' affirmations as being pretty incredible. Dr. Jones' response was "that's what faith is all about. It's about believing the incredible." I really disagree with that. Hebrews 11 says that faith is believing what cannot always be seen, but not believing what is incredible. Faith is mostly about living in a relationship of absolute and radical trust in God and, from within that relationship, living without worry and anxiety about the future. It is seeing the world as gracious and nurturing. It is the capacity to live one's life with what Marcus Borg has called "erotic exuberance." Borg is using the term "erotic" in its ancient and classical sense as the drive and energy for connection, connection with others and with all of creation. I pray that the Holy Spirit will ever work and grow that faith in you and me. Amen.