Mending Walls: Faith, Part 1

Mending Walls: Faith

The word “faith” is bruited about quite a bit in common talk, in the public arena, in churches, schools and the media. Every venue has a different take on what faith is, how it operates, its value to society, etc.

And mostly, even in Christian churches, the meaning ascribed to the word today, and its ascribed value to society by various groups, is so far off base that I wonder whether “mending” this wall is worth the effort. Perhaps building an entirely new wall and calling it “pfeffernoogle” would be better.

*sigh*

Let me back off a bit with a set of current denotative definitions that describe the word as it is in use today, ‘K?

• Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
• Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
• Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
  often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
• The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
• A set of principles or beliefs.

I’ll not fisk those definitions directly for the evidence of pejoration amounting to almost complete loss of the meaning of the word itself. Instead, in this “Mending Walls: Faith, Part 1” post (yes, there is a part 2), I want to very simply and briefly look at the formation and use of the word “faith” and its antecedents (and the words it is used to translate, in a couple of important cases) as drawn from the Graeco-Roman and Judeo-Christian roots that largely formed the basis of Western Civilization… and provided us with a concept of faith that the modern world has lost.

Part 2 will deal with what our loss of the concept means to our society today… and perhaps what it means concerning our destination as a society.

So, if you’re still with me, for the rest of part 1 CLICK

First, a couple of limitations: I have better understanding of Koine Greek than I do of Hebrew, so I won’t deal a lot with ‘esed and other Hebrew words concerning faith and faithfulness, except to say this: there’s no substantive difference between their meanings to the Hebrews/Jews of the Old Testament scriptures (on which much of Christian theology and influence rely) and the New testament Koine Greek words pistis and pisteuo.

Next limitation: no Greek fonts, so those of y’all who read Koine will just have to be satisfied with loose transliterations into a Western alphabet.

Those disclaimers out of the way, here’s a spanner in the works of contemporary Christian churches’ use of “faith: for ya (actually, the highest use of the word I know of… and still lacking).

…if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Most “church folk” will at least vaguely recognize that passage as a part of “The Roman Road” explaining the Christian theology of salvation. It’s an important concept woven into the fabric of the early church, through Medieval Western Civilization and surviving well into the time the King James Bible translators chose to stay with Coverdale’s earlier use of “faith” and “believe” to translate pistis and pisteuo.

But what they’re not telling you from the pulpits and in the Sunday School classes (and what no Academia Nut Fruitcake has or wants to have the slightest idea of) is that the Apostle Paul, in making that statement to people living in Rome, fully embedded in the contemporary Roman culture, was citing Roman oral contract law. Indeed, this same oral contract law common to the every day lives of the Roman citizens was common throughout the Mediterranean world, and, was even common throughout much of the known world–and had been for millennia, in various forms.

What Paul was citing was a “fides” contract common between a master and a bond servant (one who had sold himself into servitude or a slave who’d been freed and who had chosen to stay with his master), a military leader and his men, a husband and his wife.

It was a bilateral contract, and the basic formula was this:

Party one: “You are my lord (captain, husband)–meaning essentially, “I pledge to obey you.” Period.

Party two: “You are my slave (soldier, wife)–meaning “I will provide for you and (within any other terms of contract) protect you; I will [any further promises of contract–wages, etc.].”

This form spoken before witnesses sealed the deal. From that point on, the servant/soldier/wife’s life was in the hand of his/her “lord”. And the “lord” was bound to use his servant/soldier/wife well.

Of course this was abused. People are people. But there were legal consequences for lords abusing their bondservants/soldiers/wives… and consequences for bondservants’, etc., disobedience. Death was an option.

Think of this “fides” contract as a walled court. Inside the wall, one party is obeyed and the other cared for. Each have their responsibilities and each their privileges.

BTW, those of y’all who’ve read the dictionary a lot have been waiting for me to state the obvious: “fides” is a direct antecedent to our English word “fidelity” and related to “fiduciary” and other such words that denote behavior characterized by trust, reliability, responsibility, etc.

This “fides” contract formed the basis of the feudal system. And yes, it was abused, as always when people are involved in any covenental relationship; just not as often and as badly as we are led to believe by such derogatory terms as “Dark Ages”.

Indeed, the feudal system, although strongly tied to a real property base, reflected this “fides” contract throughout, and gave English the word “faith” from Norman French, where the term specifically reflected the fides concept in feudal pledges between a lord and his followers, servants, serfs.

It is an upchain/downchain loyalty pledge. Where do you think the term noblesse oblige* came from, anyway?

Interestingly, at the time Coverdale, Wycliffe and later the King James translators used “faith” to translate pistis in New Testament passages, precisely because it reflected this “fides” type of relationship, in other passages, such as the verses from Romans 10: 9-10 cited above, they chose another word, a specifically English word, to translate the verb form of pistis (pisteuo): believe.

And they did so because the people they were translating the Book for–literate people of the nobility and their servitors, primarily–knew intimately what a be-lief-an covenant was, even if they now used simply the “modern” (to them) words, “belief” and “believe”.

“Lief-an” was a Celtic term of ancient heritage, predating the Roman rule of England. It was… exactly the same as the “fides” covenant.

Later, Angles added their own “be” as an intensifier, as the “lief-an” covenant became debased, to mean the highest form of “lief-an–and to stamp their linguistic mark on the term, no doubt.

So, what’s the value of this mini-historical/etymological look at “faith” as a word?

Simple: not only the Graeco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures that largely shaped Western Civilization, but also other cultures (not just the Celts, though their contribution of “believe” to English is valuable) all had a deeply-embedded meme of a bi-lateral covenant of trusting obedience/providence and protection.

It was a given in matters of religion, civil government and family matters. Those who were “faithless” in these matters could expect the disapprobation of their peers, rulers and subjects alike… until a subset of the dominant culture became debased enough that they had no regard for matters of conscience, trustworthiness and responsibility.

Now, using the brief discussion of faith above, do your own fisk of contemporary meanings for the word.

And begin anticipating my discussion of what the lack of such a faith/fides/be-lief-an meme in today’s society means…

What the heck. Start on that in comments if you want.

🙂

---

*noblesse oblige: Benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank.

X-Posted at The Wide Awakes, Bloggin’ Outloud, Cathouse Chat and Woman Honor Thyself.

And tb-posted at Stop the ACLU, TMH’s Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Basil’s Blog, Conservative Cat and Jo’s Cafe, Adam’s Blog, The Dumb Ox. Also linked to the CIA (Cigar Intelligence Agency), Blue Star Chronicles and The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns.