Beatnik Christianity Pushes Back Against the Exclusivity of “Faith Seeking Understanding”

Nowhere in the Bible is there an exact definition of faith. The closest we get is Hebrews 11, which points to the ideas of assurance and conviction, but that’s more of a description than a definition. This has left a ton of room for discourse and disagreement about its dynamic nature. Right from the start we’ve got Paul’s view that we’re justified by faith alone met with some apparent pushback by James that faith without works is dead. If even the biblical authors didn’t have this figured out, then surely it’s wise to distrust anyone who pretends to have faith neatly nailed down.

For me faith is a plausibility structure that fills in the gaps. For example, I don’t unequivocally know that Jesus was resurrected. Yet it appears to make the best sense of the evidence, so I have faith in it. My faith doesn’t require certainty, but it does require reason. Let’s say Doc Brown uses his DeLorean to disprove the bodily resurrection. Faith would be useless just as Paul said. I’d immediately cease following Jesus. In this way, my faith is not impervious to the facts. Quite the opposite, facts provide the enduring backbone for my faith despite having fickle feelings.1

Many balk at this readiness to overturn faith as merited by new factual evidence. As one former bishop put it, “Why, that’s no faith at all!” Rather than be defensive, I leaned into curiosity. “Our experiences apparently differ, so what do you mean by faith?” He bristled dismissively. But, see, that is my core issue. Many condemn my kind of faith as “overly rational,” but few will describe what they mean by “faith.” Is it rooted in a mystical experience of God’s presence? Perhaps a deep emotion of serenity? Maybe it’s more like trust or a vague sense of optimism? I don’t quite know.

What I do know is beatnik Christianity rejects Christian culture’s firm expectations regarding the nature of faith. Yes, for many Jesus followers faith reflects the Augustinian model of “faith seeking understanding” where the emotions, experiences, and intuitions that comprise one’s faith precede reason. That’s valid. No, I do not accept that traditional paradigm as being the ideal or even the default. There is another way. It’s one where faith involves an amalgamation of reason, intuition, experience, and emotion. Reason being an essential ingredient in the recipe from the start.2

The original beatniks kept getting slapped down by the religious establishment. See, Western Christianity has a bad habit of poisoning the well. It’s a logical fallacy. Jesus followers have been enculturated into this knee-jerk tendency to dismiss the perspectives and insights of anyone who doesn’t profess Christian faith. It doesn’t matter if their questions are sincere or their critiques are valid. What matters is they’re not part of our Christian tribe. They don’t share the commitment to loyally believing first, then asking questions later. Well, ya know what? Neither do I.3