What matters is not the quality or pristine-ness of one’s trust, but the relationship such trust creates.
The Greek words pistis, pisteuein, and pistos, commonly translated “faith, to have faith [or believe], and faithful” (respectively), occur over 550 times in the Greek New Testament. Among the virtues classically associated with Christianity –i.e., love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control (cf., Gal. 5:22)– faith (or the concept of belief), surely enjoys pride of place.
Teresa Morgan, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Yale University, has recently published a volume, however, which complicates this understanding of faith. Following her 2015 volume, Roman Faith and Christian Faith (Oxford), Morgan has written the very first theology of trust in the New Testament. Based on her painstaking research in Roman Faith, she argues (convincingly) that pistis, pisteuein, and pistos, refer not primarily to faith and belief, but rather to trust, trustworthiness, and fidelity.
In her recent monograph, The New Testament and the Theology of Trust: ‘This Rich Trust’ (Oxford, 2022), Morgan argues for the “recovery of trust as a central theme in Christian theology.” When pist- words are understood as variations on the concept of trust (rather than “faith” or “belief”), the New Testament appears replete with trust-language. “Trust between God, Christ, and humanity is revealed as a risky, dynamic, life-changing partnership,” she writes. Christianity, rather than being founded upon cognitive ‘beliefs’ in propositional statements, is founded upon a relationship of trust between God, Christ, and human beings. “God entrusts Christ with winning the trust of humanity and bringing humanity to trust in God. God and Christ trust humanity to respond to God’s initiative through Christ, and entrust the faithful with forms of work for humanity and for creation.” Strikingly, she goes on, “Human understanding of God and Christ is limited, and trust and faithfulness often fail, but imperfect trust,” she says, “is not a deal-breaker.”
This last comment is what I’d like to ‘spotlight’ in this post anticipating the Christmas holiday. In the sixth chapter of her study, Morgan elaborates on this notion under the heading: “The Adequacy of Imperfect Trust.” She begins the section by stating, quite plainly, that: “None of the gospel writers... indicates that anyone, during Jesus’ earthly life, puts their trust in him in every aspect of his life and work. Many encounter the prophet, teacher, or healer, but we do not hear that all those who come to be healed... have heard Jesus teaching, while many of those who hear his teaching do not appear to seek physical healing,” and so on. She writes further: “There is no sign that this is problematic: it seems that one may be forgiven or brought to life by trusting in Jesus in any of his activities.”
To illustrate her point here, think about a trust-relationship you share with another human being. Whether it’s a friend, a colleague, a neighbor; on what knowledge is your trust based? Perhaps they helped you during a tough time (cf., “healing” in the Gospels). Perhaps they consistently speak reasonable or sane words (cf., “teaching” in the Gospels). Perhaps they have offered to do things for you and have never failed to fulfill their promise (cf., “reliability/trustworthiness”). Or perhaps they have sometimes failed, but less often than not. Only in the closest of all possible relationships –spouse, sibling, parent, etc.– does our trust span multiple spheres of knowledge: trust based on personality, reason, past action, and reliability, etc.
The same goes for the disciples’ trust-relationship with Jesus. In response to his healing activity, his teaching, or his general reliability (on several occasions), the earliest disciples took a relational risk and placed their trust in this person, Jesus of Nazareth. Even though they took this risk, and threw their lot in with this strange man, they did not appear to trust him unwaveringly or perfectly, not by a long shot!
Hence, Morgan writes: “No New Testament writing... insists that, to come to one’s... relationship with God, one must form a relationship with Jesus Christ in every aspect of his identity and work... To be able to put one’s trust in every aspect of Jesus’ identity and work is no more within human capacity than... to comprehend the full identity and work of God.” The risky trust that connects us (relationally) to the person of Jesus, is by no means complete, comprehensive, or airtight. I would even argue that human beings as such are incapable of exercising such unadulterated, in-finite trust at all. The partial, wavering, mixed-trust extended to Jesus in the Gospels is the same kind of human, imperfect, but genuine trust that joins us in relationship to others right now.
What is so refreshing about the Gospels (and other NT writings) is that they “do not indicate that this is a barrier... one may – perhaps [one] inevitably must –trust partially and imperfectly, and still be saved or come to eternal life.” In the disciples and the earliest followers of Jesus, then, we see a “roller-coaster of trust [and un-trust, which is]... undermined by fear, partially restored, seeks to test the strength of its relationship, is reassured, demonstrated, undermined again by fear, renewed in desperation, and reassured again,” and again and again. What matters, then, is not the quality or pristine-ness of one’s trust, but the relationship such trust creates.
The disciples constantly exhibit “lack of trust” or “little trust”: see the story of the storm on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 4:40), the disciples’ failure to expel a mute spirit (Mark 9:19), their surprise about the withered fig tree (Mark 11:22), and their doubts concerning Jesus’s resurrection (Mark 16:14). Far from being fueled by pristine, doubt-free trust, the early disciples’ relationship with Jesus “is a tapestry of light and shade: trust, confidence, fear, doubt, and skepticism” all coexist.
The only human being to exhibit complete, active trust in God is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. On occasion, however, the Gospel writers even portray Jesus “as wavering in the attitude of trust (though he always acts in accordance with God’s will).” We can think of the scene in Gethsemane where Jesus “prays to God to take away his imminent suffering: ‘but not as I will, but as you will’” (Matt. 26:39). We see, then, that one’s attitude of trust can waver, while one’s actions of trust do not. What matters chiefly, is that Jesus did not renege on the task entrusted to him by God. Even though his attitude of trust strained under the weight of such uncertainty, he nonetheless carried forward with his ‘trust’ (“that which had been entrusted to him by God, his mission for humanity/creation”).
Morgan goes on to describe the riskiness of the trust which God and Christ place in us, trusting that we will respond to Christ’s life and work in trust, and take on the work God entrusts to us. All of these dynamics express the riskiness and dynamism of the trust-relationship. And again, it shows that “what saves” is not our trust or our faith, but rather: the relationship such trust creates.
We may know just one thing about Jesus, two or three if we’re lucky, but even such little knowledge can be enough to take the risk to trust. “Even trust that is muddied with fear, skepticism, or doubt can lead to salvation,” Morgan writes. “If one fails [at times] in the attitude of trust, it may be enough to act with trust, and vice versa.” What matters, I say it again, is not the quality of trust, but the relationship such trust creates.
This Christmas, as we celebrate the birth of Jesus, I encourage you to reflect on this notion of trust. It does not take decades of church involvement, years of theological education, or even much Biblical knowledge, to know ‘enough’ to take the risk of trusting Christ.
Trusting relationally in the person of Jesus Christ, Morgan notes, does not necessarily entail adoption of an entire slate of ‘propositional beliefs.’ It is possible to trust ‘savingly’ in Christ, to trust enough to ‘throw your lot in with him,’ even if propositional belief plays but a small part.
The disciples encountered a human person, not a set of theological confessions or statements. They experienced the personality, reliability, and inviting nature of a real and authentic human being. And for a variety of reasons, some big, some small, they decided, in the end, to trust him.
This Christmas, ‘wherever you’re at’ with Jesus, whatever you know about him and his followers, I urge you: take the risk of trusting him. I can’t promise it will always be smooth, but I can promise it will change your life.
Jonah Bissell
Associate Pastor