The Mechanism of Faith

I've been mulling over just what it takes to believe ... anything. My primary concern, of course, is what it takes to come to faith in Christ, but what is the mechanism that causes a person to change from "unbelief" -- be it a scientific theory or a belief in Christ or a biblical doctrine or whatever -- to "belief"?

I've seen and heard calls for people to "choose to believe." Christians urge unbelievers to "choose to believe" in Christ. Is belief a function of the will? This seems to me to be obvious nonsense. If I can simply choose to believe something, I can end up in some interesting places. I don't believe in unicorns, but apparently I can if I just choose to. "Nope ... don't believe in them. Oh ... wait ... I choose to. Oh, yeah! Now I believe in unicorns." Doesn't happen. I don't think that faith is a matter of blind will. I suppose the will plays a part, but it isn't the singular factor.

"No, no," they tell me, "you need to provide evidence." This is the old "proof" discussion. The dictionary defines "proof" as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." I played that game when I was young. "Prove it!" I'd say. It didn't matter what it was. "My name is Bob." "Prove it!" Because as long as I demand "proof", it can't be proven. That is, as long as I don't accept the evidence, it is not "proof" -- sufficient to produce belief. (As a junior higher, that worked right up until my mom was driving our carpool and I used it on the female member of our carpool when she said, "I'm a girl" and I said "Prove it." That was the end of that smart alec game.) The truth is evidence may exist, even in abundance, but if people don't accept it, proof doesn't exist and belief doesn't happen. So evidence -- empirical, logical, historical, whatever -- is a good thing, but it doesn't ultimately decide.

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people listen to an argument (like the kind of argument presented in court) and respond, "I don't know ... that just doesn't feel right." Is belief just an emotional substance? I certainly don't think so. I've come to believe lots of things that I didn't like. Some of these things only became pleasant to me -- "felt right" -- long after I came to believe them. Most of what I believe I didn't arrive at because "it felt right". I doubt if I'm alone in this.

I begin to think that the answer for the mechanism of belief is not a monolith, not just one thing. Perhaps it's more like a safe where you get the right combination and unlock it. Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite as easy as that, either. The "right combination" changes, sometimes often -- a moving target. I've heard Christians speak of how diligent they are in sharing the Gospel because they didn't want to feel like they missed the opportunity that would have saved someone. I've heard others speak with concern that they didn't know the right things to say or perhaps failed to say it at the right time or in the right way and perhaps someone didn't meet Christ because of that. These are suggesting that there is a "right combination", like they could say this and do that and provide this other information and that other argument and, bingo, you've got a new convert. I don't think so. I don't think the mechanism of faith is that kind of mechanism.

The Bible says that saving faith has a variety of obstacles. If we agree that the mechanism of faith is a complex combination of the will, the evidence, the emotions, and more, we will find that God's Word has something to say about this. For instance, "The mind that is set on the flesh, Paul writes, "is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (Rom 8:7) "Cannot"?! There is an emotion (hostility) that prevents submission. Jesus, explaining why it is that some did not believe, stated unequivocally, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:65) There, again, is that abundantly clear "cannot" concept. It is an unavoidable blockage to a simple combination to unlock faith. Paul wrote to Corinth, "The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." (1 Cor 1:18) That's a logical roadblock. It's not that it doesn't make sense; it just doesn't make sense to them. Worse, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor 4:4) That's a kind of spiritual blindness. He expresses the same idea when he says, "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14) Another "cannot" -- "unable". All of this despite the certainty that God has made Himself evident to them (Rom 1:19-20). It isn't lack of evidence. There is another problem. A spiritual one (Eph 2:1-3).

And there's where the problem lies. There might be a complex mechanism, weighted in various ways -- emotional, mental, physical, social, familial, historical, evidential, all that -- but in the end the blockage is spiritual and the remedy for that isn't something we have available to us. That belongs only to God. So we have a job to do here and it might not be what you originally had in mind. It is not our job to make converts. It is our job to give the best witness. That witness is in our behavior as much as our words. That witness is in providing evidence, reasons, a "body of proof", even though we know that "proof" is not ultimately in our ability. That witness addresses the emotional conflicts and the mental conflicts and the conflicts of the will and all the rest. In the end, the exercise is that of a messenger without regard for how the message is received. We don't determine that. It takes an act of God to overcome the ultimate spiritual problem. We'll have to count on Him for that.