Christopher Wright speaks a little about the entry of evil into the world in his new book The God I Don’t Understand. In it, he quotes Nigel Wright on the question, “Do you believe in the devil?”
To believe in somebody or something implies that we believe in their existence. But it also carries overtones of an investment of faith or trust… To believe in Jesus means, or should mean, more than believing in his existence. It involves personal trust and faith by virtue of which the power of Christ is magnified in the life of the believer. The access of Christ to and individual’s life, his power or influence within them, is in proprtion to their faith. The same us of language applies to the wider world. To believe in a political leader implies more than believing in their existence; it implies faith in the system of values for which they stand and confidence in their ability to carry it through.
The reply to the question should Christians believe in the devil must therefore be a resounding ‘No!’ When we believe in something we have a positive relationship to that in which we believe but for the Christian a positive relationship to the devil and demons is not possible. We believe in God and on the basis of this faith we disbelieve in the devil… Satan is not the object of Christian belief but of Christian disbelief. We believe against the devil. We resolutely refuse the devil place.
Nigel G. Wright, A Theology of the Dark Side: Putting the Power of Evil in Its Places (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003), 24-25; quoted in, Christopher J.H. Wright, The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 38-39.
Okay, so I understand Nigel’s basic point is that we be careful to communicate in such a way as to show that we do not put our faith in the devil, which I would wholeheartedly agree with. However, he seems to me to be oversimplifying the statement a bit.
At least when I hear it, the phrase ‘I disbelieve in the devil’ communicates a disbelief in his existence – repudiating anything to do with him – which is a common and dangerous modern idea. Though we don’t ‘believe in’ him in the sense of putting our trust in him, we do very much believe in his existence and as a result of our faith in Christ, we believe what God has to say about the devil – which is that he is not worthy of our trust, and we do not side with him.
Perhaps just semantics, but I would be wary of flat out saying ‘I disbelieve in the devil’ without some more clarification.
Sure… but how do we “believe in Christ”? Do we just believe in his existence, or is it something more. He’s not saying, “don’t believe in the devil”. He’s saying believe in opposition to him. It still understands his existence and protests it! The point is to take a positive and turn it into a negative to show exactly what the Christian view of the devil is…. Another way of saying it, keeping the “I believe in” paradigm, is “I believe in Satan’s downfall.”
Perhaps an illustration may help clarify the point. If someone asks you, “Do you believe in slavery,” or “Do you believe in abortion?” There asking more than just whether or not you affirm their existence. They’re asking whether or not you believe in those structures or processes. What they’re really saying is, “Do you get behind this? Are you in favor of these things happening?” The answer is (at least for me…), “NO! I don’t believe in those things… I believe against them, with everything I am.”
Maybe that helps. Let me know.
I don’t disagree with you. Perhaps just have a different way of saying it. I think my main concern was primarily that there is more than one valid way of understanding the phrase ‘believe in,’ one of which primarily references existence. And while Dr. Wright’s [and yours, and mine as well] understanding of the phrase as including qualitative value in the assertion is good and valid, my hesitation really only comes because there are so many in the world today – especially in our Western nation and culture – who actually don’t believe in the devil’s literal existence, it behooves us to make clear that when we say ‘we don’t believe in the devil’ that what we are really communicating is that we do indeed believe in his existence, *and* we believe against him. If I heard someone say ‘I disbelieve in the devil’ without any clarification or awareness of their worldview, I wouldn’t be sure if they were referring primarily to his existence, or to their moral standing in reference to him.
So, all that to say, I have no problem with the phrase ‘I disbelieve in the devil’ as long as we are clear about what we mean about it [which both Dr. Wright and yourself did well], since the difference between the two can have some pretty serious ramifications.
Mostly, I’m just after clear communication. That being said, was I able to make clear what I meant or did I just further obfuscate things? : )
I guess I’m just proud you used obfuscate in a sentence.
I think we’re just arguing semantics… but my semantic range is the correct one.
As long as the semantic range of ‘correct’ includes ‘ambiguous.’
Well, if it did, we really wouldn’t really be arguing semantics, would we?